NALC Arbitration
National arbitration operations and materials

2010 Arbitration DVD set

NALC has published a major update to the the Arbitration program on DVD. The software program enables contract researchers to search quickly through NALC's database of thousands of arbitration awards. The program DVD also contains PDF files of the original decisions for viewing, printing and copying text.

During installation, users with 16 GB of hard drive space may choose to copy all the arbitration decisions to their computer's hard drive. This enables full-text searching through all decisions released up to the time of publication. The free Adobe Reader® is required; a version of that software is included on DVD 3.

Branches may purchase the DVD set for $10 from NALC's Supply Department. Call (202) 662-2873 with Visa or Mastercard orders, or send a check or money order made out to "NALC" for the appropriate amount, along with your mailing information, to: NALC Supply Department; 100 Indiana Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20001-2144.

National arbitration awards of interest

C-26852, National Arbitrator Das, January 19, 2007: National-level award holding that management may not remove non-probationary letter carriers without cause simply because an administrative error occurred in their original appointments to the Postal Service.

C-26334, National Arbitrator Das, January 6, 2006: National level arbitration concerning whether the Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) for Case No. H7C-NA-C 39 entered into on June 13, 1990 by the Postal Service, the APWU and the NALC requires that anomaly lump sum payments include the Territorial Cost of Living Allowance (TCOLA). Arbitrator Das concluded that “[t]here is no question, ...that not including TCOLA in the calculation of ABC payments results in an employee being compensated less than if the employee had not been promoted, contrary to the basic principle agreed to in [p]aragraph 2 of the 1990 MOS.”

C-26165, National Arbitrator Das, September 28, 2005: National level arbitration addressing whether the Postal Service violated Article 41.1.A.3 when the Postal Service unilaterally changed route assignments from fixed to rotating days off in conformance with Article 8 of the Boston LMOU. Arbitrator Das held that the Postal Service did not violate Article 41.1.A.3 of the National Agreement.

C-25724, National Arbitrator Das, January 28, 2005: National Level arbitration regarding three (3) issues: (1) Whether in applying ELM 513.332 may the Postal Service ask employees to describe the nature of their illness/injury; (2) Whether the Postal Service’s implementation of a process that requires employees to notify the Postal Service if they do not accept the second opinion and want a third opinion and; (3) Whether or not employees seeking to substitute paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave are required to provide medical documentation or other acceptable evidence of incapacity to work in accordance with ELM 513.362 even where an employee has previously provided an approved FMLA certification indicating a need for intermittent leave which falls between the certification and a recertification.

C-25374, National Arbitrator Nolan, July 25, 2004: Arbitrator Nolan held that Article 8, Section 9 and Article 30, Section B prohibit negotiation of LMOU provisions that provide wash-up to all employees without consideration of whether they perform dirty work or are exposed to toxic materials. Arbitrator Nolan further held that the local parties remain free to define the employees who satisfy those conditions.

C-25091, National Arbitrator Das, March 22, 2004: Ruling from Arbitrator Das regarding the APWU’s request to add two exhibits to the record while the record in the case remains open for the purpose of receiving the parties’ post-hearing briefs.

C-25008, National Arbitrator Snow, February 17, 2004: National Arbitrator Snow, February 17, 2004. The arbitrator held that the record of the national limited duty case ( C-18860) is closed. He denied an APWU request for a declaratory judgement that the APWU's collective bargaining agreement must be complied with.

C-23767, National Arbitrator Stephen Briggs, October 29, 2002: Arbitrator Briggs ruled that the Postal Service may not properly inspect city carrier routes on all six days of the count and inspection week.

Regional Awards of Interest

C-28705, Regional Arbitrator Monat, April 1, 2010: The grievant worked for the USPS for 26 years. He suffered work-related injuries in 1998 and in 2004. His medical limitation allowed him to perform clerk-type work eight hours per day until August 18, 2009, when his restrictions limited him to four hours of work per day. On September 30, 2009, the grievant received a job offer of one-hour of casing duties per day with no additional clerk work included. The arbitrator in this case used a three-prong test to determine if a violation of the ELM 546 pecking order took place. First prong was to determine if work existed at the early stages of the pecking order; second, if there is a shortage of hours, the remainder of the pecking order must be followed to satisfy the pecking order; third, whether management failed to follow the pecking order. The arbitrator found that management failed to make a good-faith effort to find work for the grievant in this case. The arbitrator noted that management only checked several facilities within the grievant’s commute area for work, and that management’s obligation was to check all facilities within the commute distance for available work. The arbitrator also gives an excellent definition of "make work" versus terms management used, such as “tangible work” or “adequate work.” The arbitrator also explains management's obligation to look for work across craft lines. The Arbitrator sustained the union’s grievance, making the grievant whole at the appropriate rate of pay, including restoration of annual and sick leave. Also, the payment of overtime to ODL carriers was granted. The arbitrator did deny the union’s request to pay clerks for overtime worked, finding it to be unjust enrichment. Lastly, the arbitrator ordered the Service to cease and desist violating ELM 546 and of substituting NRP criteria for the criteria specified in ELM 546.

C-28716, Regional Arbitrator Jacobs, March 15, 2010: The NALC filed a grievance on October 5, 2009, objecting to the actions of one supervisor. The union claimed those actions violated the Joint Statement on Violence in the Workplace. The supervisor in this case has a long history of complaints concerning his abusive manner. In 1999, an intervention took place as the result of pressure from both a U.S. senator and U.S. representative. In 2002, as the result of a grievance, the supervisor was removed from day-to-day supervision of carriers. On November 5, 2009, the B Team agreed that a violation of the Joint Statement had occurred but could find common ground for a remedy. Management in this case argued that no violation of the Joint Statement occurred, despite the finding of the Step B team. At the onset of her decision, the arbitrator engaged in a long discussion of the Joint Statement and its intent to curb violence before it happens. Among the problems identified with the charged supervisor was his inability to ascertain the facts before placing blame. After a careful analysis of the facts, the arbitrator found that management did, in fact, violate the Joint Statement. As a remedy, the arbitrator ordered that the supervisor involved do no more than two street observations per carrier per calendar year; that during those observations, the supervisor remains at least 15 feet from the carrier at all times; that any comments made to the carrier shall be made the next workday with the presence of a higher-level supervisor and a union representative; that the supervisor shall be relieved of morning “go round” procedures; that any time the supervisor mentions “job discussion,” the carrier has an immediate right to union representation; that if any of these rules are not followed, the employee has the right to an immediate phone call to the union; that any disciplinary action taken by this supervisor shall automatically include this arbitration award in the record; and that the above actions have no time limit on them.

C-28551, Regional Arbitrator Paul Greenberg, December 11, 2009: The Branch grieved management’s failure to equitably distribute overtime during the quarter. During the course of the grievance procedure, the Union requested documents that management failed to provide. The Arbitrator found that once the Union had made a prima facie showing that a violation of the contract had occurred, the burden shifted to management to provide evidence that supported their claim that no contract violation took place. Management only provided verbal testimony at the hearing, the Arbitrator found that was insufficient to overcome the Union’s prima facie case. The Arbitrator paid all ODL carriers below the average at the overtime rate for all hours up to the quarterly average overtime hours.

C-28556A&B, Regional Arbitrator Peter J. Clarke, November 23, 2009: This case involves an office where management began recording mail volume and leaving and return times on placards at the carriers cases. The mail volume numbers were taken from the Workload Status Report. The numbers were generated before the last mail arrived. Carriers were threatened with discipline if they failed to make their leave and return times. The Arbitrator found that management failed to take into account M-39 provisions that required other considerations beyond just DOIS numbers in determining leave and return times. The Arbitrator found that management’s reliance on DOIS numbers created a hostile work environment. The Arbitrator ordered a cease and desist and instructed management they must utilize the M-39 Handbook in determining leave and return times.

C-26543, Regional Arbitrator Klein, May 25, 2006: This is a representative case that in part challenges management on Section 126.3 of the M-39 Handbook. Arbitrator Klein determined that 126.3 of the M-39 requires management to put the names of replacement carriers on vacant assignments on PS Form 3997 several days in advance of the day of vacancy. With this position, Arbitrator Klein determined that management violated the contract by pivoting carriers except in unanticipated circumstances.

C-25902, Regional Arbitrator Thomas F. Levak, April 15, 2005: Provides a sharp focus on the contractual limits on managements right to work PTFs beyond twelve hours in a workday. In this case, the local union grieved managements continued requirement that Part-Time Flexible carriers work beyond 12 hours per day in violation of Section 432.32 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM). The Postal Service argued res judicata that the issue in the case has already been decided. Management based that argument on the National Award by Carlton Snow, Case No. A90N-4A-C 94042668 (C-18926), in which he found that the 50 percent remedy in the 1988 Memorandum was the exclusive remedy for violations of 8.5G2.