between ) Post Office : San Francisco, CA ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) Case No. W4N -5C-C 8087 ) and )

Transcription

1 REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL In the Matter of Arbitration ) Grievance : Branch ) between ) Post Office : San Francisco, CA ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) Case No. W4N -5C-C 8087 ) and ) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) LETTER CARRIERS ) Before : Harvey Letter, Arbitrator Appearances : For the U.S. Postal Service : Aafifah Fola Muhebi Regional Labor Relations Executive For the Union : Place of Hearing : Dale P. Hart Regional Administrative Assistant 1300 Evans Street San Francisco, CA Date of Hearing : March 29, 1988 Award : The Employer violated Article 12, Section of the National Agreement by its July 30, 1985, temporary assignment of Part-time Flexible Letter Carriers Rafael Zelaya and Michael Stubblefield from Station "A " of the San Francisco Post Office to the San Mateo Post Office. Date of Award : April 22, 1988

2 -2- STATEMENT OF THE CASE As parties to a collective bargaining agreement effective from July 21, 1984, to July 20, 1987, the Union and the Employer submitted this matter to arbitration. The dispute involves the Employer' s temporary assignment of two employees from one post office to another. The Parties agreed that all contract procedures have been complied with, or waived, and that the matter is properly before the Arbitrator for resolution. At the arbitration hearing, the Parties had full opportunity to present evidence and argument, including the examination and cross - examination of witnesses. ISSUE The Parties did not agree upon a statement of the issue. They agreed instead that the Arbitrator would identify the issue. In such circumstance, the Arbitrator defines the issue in this case, as follows : Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Employer ' s temporary assignment of two Part-time Flexible Carriers from the San Francisco Post Office to the San Mateo Post Office violated the Parties ' National Agreement. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS ARTICLE 3 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The Employer shall have the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of this Agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations : A. To direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official duties ; B. To hire, promote, transfer, assign, and retain employees in positions within the Postal Service and to suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary action against such employees ;

3 -3- 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 concluded ; Section 1. Definition and Use ARTICLE 7 EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS A. Regular Work Force. The regular work force shall be comprised of two categories of employees which are as follows : 1. Full-Time. Employees in this category shall be hired pursuant to such procedures as the Employer may establish and shall be assigned to regular schedules consisting of five ( 5) eight ( 8) hour days in a service week. 2. Part-Time. Employees in this category shall be hired pursuant to such procedures as the Employer may establish and shall be assigned to regular schedules of less than forty ( 40) hours in a service week, or shall be available to work flexible hours as assigned by the Employer during the course of a service week. ARTICLE 12 PRINCIPLES OF SENIORITY, POSTING AND REASSIGNMENTS * * * Section 4. Principles of Reassignments A. A primary principle in effecting reassignments will be that dislocation and inconvenience to employees in the regular work force shall be kept to a minimum, consistent with the needs of the service... Section 5. Reassignments B. Principles and Requirements

4 -4-1. Dislocation and inconvenience to full-time and part-time flexible employees shall be kept to the minimum consistent with the needs of the service. 5. Full-time and part -time flexible employees involuntarily detailed or reassigned from one installation to another shall be given not less than 60 days advance notice, if possible 6. Any employee volunteering to accept reassignment to another craft or occupational group, another branch of the Postal Service, or another installation shall start a new period of seniority beginning with such assignment, except as provided herein. * ARTICLE 15 GRIEVANCE-ARBITRATION PROCEDURE * * * Section 2. Step 1 : Grievance Procedure - Steps * (d) The Union shall be entitled to appeal an adverse decision to Step 2 of the grievance procedure within ten (10 ) days after receipt of the supervisor ' s decision. Such appeal shall be made by completing a standard grievance form developed by agreement of the parties, which shall include appropriate space for at least the following : 1. Detailed statement of facts ; 2. Contentions of the grievant ; 3. Particular contractual provisions involved ; and 4. Remedy sought. * ARTICLE 41 LETTER CARRIER CRAFT

5 -5- * Section 2. Seniority A. Coverage 1. This seniority section applies to all regular work force letter carrier craft employees when a guide is necessary for filling assignments and for other purposes and will be so used to the maximum extent possible. E. Definitions 4. Part-time flexible letter carriers may exercise their preference by use of their seniority for vacation scheduling and for available full-time craft duty assignments of anticipated duration of five (5) days or more in the delivery unit to which they are assigned. C. Responsibility for Administration The Employer shall be responsible for the day-to-day administration of seniority rules. Every installation, station, branch, and/or delivery unit shall have a roster posted in an appropriate place listing all carriers in order of seniority number. Said roster shall be updated during the months of July and January of every calendar year. FACTS Part-time Flexible Letter Carriers Rafael Zelaya and Michael Stubblefield "entered on duty" with the Postal Service on June 9, 1984, and March 16, 1985, respectively. On July 30, 1985, Zelaya and Stubblefield were assigned to work at Station "A" of the San Francisco Post Office. At that time and without prior notice, Management temporarily reassigned them to work at the San Mateo Post Office for an indefinite period. Management made the two reassignments, "without regard for... [the two Employ-

6 -6- ees'] seniority or the seniority of other Part-time Flexibles in San Francisco." Further, "Zelaya and Stubblefield were neither the senior nor junior Part-time Flexible Employees." Zelaya and Stubblefield continued in the San Mateo temporary assignment for approximately one month. At the end of that time, Management asked the two Employees whether they wished to remain in the San Mateo Post Office or return to work in San Francisco. Zelaya opted to return to San Francisco. Stubblefield chose to remain in San Mateo. He did so, effective August 31, THE UNION'S POSITION The Union contends that Articles 12 and 41 of the Parties' National Agreement required the Employer to permit Part-time Flexible Letter Carriers to volunteer for assignment from San Francisco to San Mateo before reassigning Zelaya and Stubblefield. If there had been no volunteers, those Contract provisions allegedly required the Employer to reassign Part-time Flexible Carriers to San Mateo in reverse order of seniority. The Union notes the Employer did not give San Francisco employees the opportunity to volunteer for the San Mateo assignment. Further, the Employer reassigned Part-time Flexible Carriers Zelaya and Stubblefield although there were other San Francisco employees in their job classification with less seniority. The Union also points out that - at the end of their temporary assignment - the Employer asked Zelaya and Stubblefield whether they wished to remain in San Mateo or return to San Francisco. Allegedly, the Employer thereby demonstrated awareness of a Contractual obligation to permit Part-time Flexible Employees to volunteer for re-

7 -7- assignment from one post office to another, before implementing the transfer of that classification of employees. According to the Union, such circumstances establish that the Employer ' s assignment of Zelaya and Stubblefield to San Mateo violated the National Agreement. By way of remedy, the Union seeks a determination that the Employer violated the National Agreement. It requests that the Employer be required to cease and desist from temporarily assigning Part -time Flexible Employees from one job installation to another without complying with the terms of Articles 12 and 41 of the National Agreement. THE EMPLOYER ' S POSITION The Employer asserts the Union advanced arguments at the arbitration stage of this proceeding which it had not made previously in the course of the grievance procedure. The Employer contends the Arbitrator should not consider those alleged Union arguments. The Employer argues generally that - pursuant to its "exclusive rights" under Article 3 of the National Agreement - it had the authority to assign Zelaya and Stubblefield temporarily to the San Mateo Post Office. The Employer claims that it "must retain the right to manage " its operations. At the arbitration hearing, the Employer ' s representative acknowledged that " management did not consider the seniority of the part-time flexibles in making the assignments " of Zelaya and Stubblefield. In that regard, the Employer ' s Step 3 Decision on the Union ' s grievance stated, It is management's position that pursuant to Article 41.2B4, PTFs may exercise their preference by use of their seniority only for full-time craft duty assignments of anticipated duration of five (5) days or

8 -8- more in the delivery unit to which they are assigned. In the present case, the details were neither to full-time assignments nor in the delivery unit to which the grievants were assigned. Management has no obligation to seek volunteers or consider seniority when making [ temporary ] details of [ Part -time Flexible Employees]. Further, the Union argues that Article 12 of the National Agreement does not apply to temporary details of employees. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Initially, there is the Employer ' s contention that the Union advanced arguments at the arbitration hearing which the Arbitrator should not consider. In support, the Employer cites a number of previous arbitration case determinations. Two of those decisions were made in National Level arbitration cases and warrant discussion. In United States Postal Service Helena, Montana and National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 220, Case No. H8N -5L-C 10418, Arbitrator Richard Mittenthal issued an Award dated September 21, Arbitrator Mittenthal refused to consider Postal Service "reliance on [a] contract provision [which] did not surface until the arbitration hearing itself." In United States Postal Service and National Association of Letter Carriers, Case No. H8N-5B-C 17682, Arbitrator Benjamin Aaron issued a Decision and Award dated April 12, Arbitrator Aaron stated, "I am fully in agreement with Arbitrator Mittenthal that the provisions of Article XV requiring that all of the facts and arguments relied upon by both parties must be fully disclosed before the case is submitted to arbitration should be strictly enforced." It remains to apply the cited holdings to the facts of the instant case. In the course of the grievance procedure in this case, the Union generally relied upon provisions of Articles 12 and 41 of the National

9 -9- Agreement. More particularly, the Union argued that the Employer failed to comply with those provisions by not giving employees the opportunity to volunteer for the July 30, 1985, San Mateo assignment and by not implementing the assignment i n accord with seniority. Thus, the Union identified the Employer ' s "arbitrary and capricious practice of reassigning carriers to other Post Offices based on management whim" and requested that reassigning " in the future be done by first volunteers and, secondly, by city-wide juniority." In the arbitration proceeding, the Union also relied upon the terms of Articles 12 and 41 of the National Agreement and advanced the two specific arguments based on "volunteers " and "juniority." Otherwise stated, the overall record does not support the Employer's contention that the Union raised new arguments in the arbitration proceeding which it had not advanced previously in the course of the grievance procedure. Accordingly, there is no valid basis for refusing to consider the fundamental arguments which the Union made at the arbitration stage of this dispute. In order to determine the effect of the terms of Articles 12 and 41 identified by the Union, it is useful to identify the essence of the Employer's authority to implement employees ' work assignments. In United States Postal Service and National Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers and Group Leaders Division of the Laborers ' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, National Level Arbitrator Sylvester Garrett issued a determination on October 28, That determination involved a collective bargaining agreement which contained a Management Rights clause substantially the same as the Article 3 Management Rights clause

10 -10- involved in the instant case. In interpreting the Management Rights clause, Arbitrator Garrett stated, and Article III of the National Agreement confirms the Postal Service's 'exclusive right ' to assign employees as required to conduct its operations, subject to the provisions of the National Agreement. Under Article III of the National Agreement, the Postal Service enjoys the freedom to assign employees to various duties and work stations, subject only to the restrictions which are specified in the National Agreement. Upon independent consideration, the Arbiter in the instant case accepts the referenced holdings of Arbitrator Garrett. Arbiter finds those holdings are applicable to the Parties ' Further, the National Agreement in this case. Thus, it is appropriate to determine whether the terms of Articles 12 and 41 cited by the Union imposed restrictions upon the Employer relative to the assignment of Zelaya and Stubblefield to the San Mateo Post Office. The Employer asserts the provisions of Article 12 did not apply to the temporary details of Zelaya and Stubblefield to the San Mateo Post Office. However, on its face, the National Agreement suggests the contrary. Article 12, Section provides that the principles and requirements of assignments apply to employees involuntarily " detailed " as well as to those "reassigned." A work "detail " reasonably connotes a temporary concept - as distinguished from a more permanent change in job assignment. In that light and in the absence of contravening probative evidence, it is found the Employer was obligated to comply with the terms of Article 12 in assigning Zelaya and Stubblefield to the San Mateo Post Office.

11 -11- Article 12, Section 4. A. provides that a "primary principle in effecting reassignments will be that dislocation and inconvenience to employees in the regular work force shall be kept to a minimum, consistent with the needs of the service. Reassignments will be made in accordance with this Section and the provisions of Section 5 below." The Union's Representative at the arbitration hearing stated that Article 12, Sections 5.A. and S.C. do not apply to the instant case. That leaves for consideration the "Principles and Requirements " for reassignments which are contained in Article 12, Section 5. B. Subsection 1 of that Section 5.B. states that "Dislocation and inconvenience to full-time and part -time flexible employees shall be kept to the minimum consistent with the needs of the service." Subsection S of that Section 5.B. states, " Full-time and part - time flexible employees involuntarily detailed or reassigned from one installation to another shall be given not less than 60 days advance notice, if possible, The record does not establish that the Employer gave Part-time Flexible Employees Zelaya and Stubblefield sixty days advance notice before reassigning them from San Francisco to San Mateo on July 30, Moreover, the Employer failed to provide evidence which established that it was not "possible " for the employer to provide such advance notice. It follows that the Employer did not comply with the notice requirement of Article 12, Section 5. B.5. of the National Agreement. Article 41, Section provides, " Part-time flexible letter carriers may exercise their preference by use of their seniority for vacation scheduling and for available full-time craft duty assignments of anticipated

12 -12- duration of five (5 ) days or more in the delivery unit to which they are assigned." The Union notes that the Employer gave no consideration to seniority in assigning Part -time Flexible Letter Carriers Zelaya and Stubblefield to San Mateo. Also, the Union notes that the San Mateo duty assignment lasted more than five days. From those circumstances, the Union argues that the Employer violated the terms of Article 41, Section 2.B.4. However, the evidence demonstrates that on July 30, 1985, Zelaya and Stubblefield were assigned to a San Francisco Post Office "delivery unit." Their change in duty assignment was to San Mateo. In such circumstances and in the absence of independent evidence concerned with the meaning of the "delivery unit" concept contained in Article 41, Section 2.B.4., it has not been shown that Station " A" of the San Francisco Post Office and the San Mateo Post Office are within the same "delivery unit." In that light, it has not been established that the Employer' s July 30, 1985, assignment of Zelaya and Stubblefield to the San Mateo Post Office "delivery unit" violated the terms of Article 41, Section 2.B.4. of the National Agreement.