Contract Negotiations Begin Between U.S. Postal Service and American Postal Workers Union

Negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and the American Postal Workers Union began Sept. 1. The current contract expires Nov. 20, 2010.

“Every contract negotiation brings special challenges, and this will be no different,” APWU President William Burrus said at the opening session. “Mail volume is depressed and revenue is down, but we have faced similar circumstances before.

“The history of the Postal Service is replete with forecasts of doom and gloom, but such dire predictions have not prevented us from exploring every opportunity to achieve agreement.”

“Once again naysayers warn of the imminent demise of the Postal Service,” he said. “They demand wholesale changes to the foundation we have built over our 40-year history, ignoring the fact that each provision in the expiring contract has a history of give-and-take, the basic element of contract negotiations.”

“The road will be difficult and the outcome uncertain, but there are components of an agreement awaiting our discovery. I pledge the best efforts of the American Postal Workers Union to find a way to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement.”

The grievance protests the June 11, 2008, denial of grievant’s request to transfer from West Palm Beach to the Miami P&DC, due to an unacceptable attendance record. The Union claimed that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of Article 12.6 and the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Transfers.

The Union contended that the Service’s denial of grievant’s transfer request was arbitrary and capricious in violation of Article 12.6 and the Transfer MOU, which requires the Service to give full and fair consideration to transfer requests such as grievant’s. The Union emphasized that there is no evidence to support the Service’s consideration of any factor other than grievant’s attendance, and that even that factor was insufficiently considered in light of Suarez’s admitted failure to consider anything beyond the raw numbers on the Form 3972?s.

The arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance; in so doing he noted:

Given the facts of this case, the language of the Transfer MOU provides a natural starting point for the analysis to follow. As the MOU provides at Section D, Suarez, as the gaining installation head, was required to give full and fair consideration to grievant’s work, safety, and attendance records. While Suarez obviously is entitled to conduct his own evaluation of those records, the provision of the MOU requiring the losing installation head to be fair in his evaluation, effectively requires the conclusion that the record on which Suarez’s “full and fair consideration” is to be based, must include consideration of the losing installation’s evaluation, which itself must be “full and fair.” . . . . the Service’s inability to demonstrate any consideration of grievant’s work and safety records would require judgment in favor of the Union. As the Transfer MOU and both parties’ citation to arbitral precedent makes clear, the Service is required to consider all three factors – work, safety, and attendance – even if its decision ultimately is based on only one. As the Transfer MOU and related cases make clear, perfection is not the standard for consideration of transfer requests.

Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

Burrus Update 10-2010, July 9, 2010

The Postal Service has filed a request to increase postage rates effective Jan. 2, 2011, and is proposing to raise the price of first-class, single-piece letters from 44 cents to 46 cents. Increases for other mail classes would range from 5.4 to 8 percent.

As anticipated, large mailers have gone ballistic. They have formed a new organization, the Affordable Mail Alliance, dedicated to stopping the rate hike.

The next step is a review by the Postal Regulatory Commission, which may accept, reject, or modify the proposed rates. This is the first rate request submitted under the “exigency provision” of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), and it faces stiff opposition because it would increase postage rates above the rate of inflation. The exigency provision allows the USPS to do so.

The APWU will intervene in the PRC proceedings to contest the absolute refusal by postal officials to comply with another provision of the law, which stipulates that postage discounts may be no greater than “postal costs avoided.”

Despite the Postal Service’s admission in previous rate requests that discounts exceed the costs avoided, this request would reduce the discount on five-digit pre-sorted mail by just 1/10 of 1 cent. This is preposterous!

Mailers Try to Make Employees Pay

Early indications are that the Affordable Mail Alliance will attempt to make employees the scapegoat, by claiming that postal workers — who have the benefit of collective bargaining — are paid substantially more than employees in comparable private-sector jobs.

They hope to make postal employees pay for the legislation that requires the USPS to pre-fund $56 billion in future retiree healthcare obligations over a 10-year period.

The 2010 exigency rate request is a direct response to the requirement that the Postal Service assume this cost in 10 successive annual payments ranging from $5.4 to $5.8 billion. Absent this payment, a rate increase in 2010 would have been unnecessary.

Can you guess who the principal supporters of the legislation that requires the onerous payments were? Yes, the large mailers. Now the same mailers who supported the requirement cry that the payments should be made from the wages and benefits of postal employees.

When postal employees retire, they assume responsibility for approximately 30 percent of health insurance premiums, which is a significant increase from what they paid when they were active employees covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For example, an employee who is enrolled in the Blue Cross Standard Family Option pays $132.83 biweekly or $287.80 monthly during active employment; upon retirement, this payment escalates to $400.97 monthly. The balance of the premium is paid by the government, which is reimbursed by the USPS.

The PAEA requires the Postal Service to pre-fund the USPS share of this future payment, and now the mailers want to force postal employees to pay the USPS share through wage-and-benefit reductions equal to the PAEA-required payments. This would result in postal retirees paying 100 percent of their retirement healthcare premiums — by shifting the pre-funding requirement to employees through cuts in their pay and benefits.

Exigency Case Was Inevitable

The simple truth is that the exigency rate case was inevitable. The 17 percent decline in mail volume, coupled with the pre-funding requirement, has left the USPS on the brink of insolvency.

Because the Postal Service does not earn or set aside profits, any USPS deficit bears a direct relationship to the cost of postal operations – including mail collection, processing, transportation, delivery, retail services, and support. By law, the postage that funds these operations must equal the costs.

The mailers comprising the Affordable Mail Alliance want mail service, but they do not want to pay the actual cost of those services. Instead, they are seeking to shift attention to the employees. They are suggesting a renewed focus on closing stations and branches, consolidating mail processing facilities, and demanding concessions from workers.

The 2010 rate adjustments proposed by the Postal Service are not a response to declining mail volume caused by the recession, or the diversion of hard-copy mail to electronic forms. This adjustment is to pay the future healthcare bill, aggressively lobbied for by the mailers who now cry foul when payment is due.

I feel compelled to tell them: “You wanted the PAEA and its payment schedule, but now you want to avoid paying for it through higher postage rates.”

William Burrus
President

apwu.org

Despite a modest improvement in the economy, advertising mail has not yet rebounded. Coupled with the diversion to electronic messages, the recession has reduced mail volume to 1994 levels.

The geniuses who supported the provision of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) that requires the Postal Service to pre-fund future health care liabilities ignored the gyrations of business cycles. During this period of low mail volume, the pre-funding obligation threatens the solvency of the Postal Service. Efforts are underway to provide relief from the payments, which exceed $5 billion annually for 10 years.

A recent independent actuarial report [PDF] released by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) concluded that the Postal Service has overpaid the Civil Service Retirement System in the amount of $50 to $55 billion, and suggested an “adjustment” in favor of the USPS. If approved by OPM, this adjustment could relieve most of the financial pressure on the Postal Service.

The APWU Legislative and Political Department, in concert with other postal unions and the mailing industry, is making the case that this overpayment should be used to offset the pre-funding obligation and relieve the Postal Service from the annual payment.

In the meantime, postal management’s response to the financial challenges has been facility consolidations, the closure of stations and branches, excessing, and computerized scheduling — all causing major disruptions in the lives of employees. Tens of thousands of employees have been excessed from their installations and crafts, and any semblance of job stability is a distant memory.

Despite the protection against layoffs and the 8-hour guarantee found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement [PDF], the impact on APWU members has been devastating. Employees have been faced with a most difficult choice: They must decide whether or not to continue employment when doing so would mean uprooting their families and disrupting their lives.

In years past, when we were confronted with changes of this magnitude, there were opportunities to mitigate the effect on employees through union-management cooperation. Unfortunately, it seems those opportunities no longer exist: The Postal Service’s Labor Relations Department has been relegated into a forum for preparing cases for arbitration — not settlement.

It seems management has no interest in reaching agreements on contract interpretation and application, so the union’s only option has been to initiate grievances for a growing list of disputes. Postal management appears to have made a conscious decision to apply the most draconian interpretation of contractual terms and to await the decision of an arbitrator years in the future.

An example of management’s policy is the dispute that arose over the Annual Leave Exchange program that was negotiated in the 1998 National Agreement. Management interpreted the agreement as excluding PTFs; the union grieved the exclusion, and in 2009 we prevailed in arbitration. The arbitrator referred the remedy to the parties, and after discussions failed to result in a settlement, the remedy has been sent back to the arbitrator. Eleven years after the contract was violated, affected employees will receive a remedy when an arbitrator rules later this year. In anticipation that the arbitrator will provide monetary relief, locals are requested to research their records to identify employees who were affected.

The scheduling of national interpretive cases for arbitration will be an important issue in upcoming contract negotiations. The union will demand modifications of the process so that when the Postal Service initiates major changes, disputes can be adjudicated in a timely manner.

Unlike most workers in the public and private sectors, APWU-represented employees have access to a grievance-arbitration procedure, which mean an arbitrator can be called upon to interpret the contract. This right is undermined, however, by the Postal Service’s strategy of “defer and delay” — deferring all important issues to arbitration, and delaying the day of reckoning. Management is making no serious attempt to limit the traumatic impact of life-changing events on employees.

Notwithstanding the frustration caused by USPS stonewalling, the union continues to challenge improper management decisions, and is awaiting final decisions on a number of issues that are important to our members. A partial list of issues awaiting final decision is as follows:

• Severance Pay for employees who retired through early-outs in 2008 and 2009 – The contract requires that “Before implementation of reassignment under this Article or, if necessary, layoff and reduction in force of excess employees …the Employer shall solicit volunteers from among employees in the same craft within the installation to terminate their employment with the Employer. Employees who elect to terminate their employment will receive a lump sum severance payment in the amount provided by Part 435 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual…”
• Tour 2 Initiative – Management eliminated Tour 2 in all mail processing facilities without satisfying its obligation to bargain in good faith.
• Pitney Bowes – Management violated its obligation to meet, discuss, and consider union proposals on the transfer of bargaining unit work to Pitney Bowes from the New Jersey International Mail Distribution Center.
• 90-Day Notice – The Postal Service failed to give the union at the Regional level proper notice prior to excessing employees from the craft or installation as required by Article 12 of the National Agreement, the Joint Contract Interpretation Manual, and numerous memoranda on excessing.
• 60-Day Notice – The Postal Service has failed to give proper notice to employees of its intent to reassign them outside their craft or installation. (The notice must include the office to which the employees are reassigned.)
• Restrictions on the Increase of Casual and Part-Time Flexible Employees and Hours – Management has violated the prohibition against increasing casual/PTF hours before excessed employees have exhausted their retreat rights.
• Obligation to Reduce Part-Time Flexible Hours – Management has failed to limit PTF hours in order to minimize the impact on the regular workforce when it is intended to excess employees from their craft or installation.
• Obligation to Separate All Casuals – Management has failed to maximize the available hours — by limiting the hours worked by casuals — in order to minimize the impact on full-time employees who elect to convert to PTR and remain within the installation in lieu of reassignment outside the installation.

These disputes await final disposition through the grievance-arbitration procedure. In each case, the union’s claim is supported by clear contractual language. In the past, circumstances such as these would have led to serious discussions and possible settlements. With the change in management philosophy, however, each issue will now be deferred to arbitration, requiring the passage of time before final disposition. We shall remain resolute for however long it takes to prevail.

William Burrus
President

Postal employees and customers are approaching an important milestone in the fight to save Saturday service, as a House resolution supporting six-day mail delivery continues to gain momentum.

Close to 200 U.S. Representatives have signed on to co-sponsor House Resolution 173, which says “the U.S. Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of its six-day mail delivery service.” A total of 218 votes are needed to adopt the “sense of the House resolution,” which was introduced in February 2009 by Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO).

Although adoption of the measure would not create new law, it would send a strong signal that lawmakers oppose the elimination of Saturday delivery. The USPS is seeking authority to reduce the number of delivery days from six to five, and has launched an aggressive public-relations campaign to achieve that goal. The APWU vehemently opposes the elimination of Saturday delivery, which President William Burrus has said “would lead to the demise of the Postal Service.”

The 2010 federal appropriations bill requires the Postal Service to maintain six-day delivery; before the USPS could abolish Saturday delivery, the requirement would have to be eliminated from the 2011 appropriations bill.

“I urge APWU members to contact their U.S. representatives and ask them to Save Saturday Service,” Burrus said. “If they are already co-sponsors of H. Res. 173, thank them. If they have not yet signed on, please encourage them to do so.”

Source: APWU

Testifying at a Las Vegas field hearing, APWU Western Region Coordinator Omar Gonzalez urged the Postal Regulatory Commission to reject the USPS proposal to end Saturday delivery. The plan will “hasten the call for elimination of the private express statutes and legal monopolies, which ensure quality postal services at affordable prices,” he said.

Addressing the commission on May 10, Gonzalez said that eliminating Saturday delivery would lead to an erosion in the public’s confidence in the Postal Service, and an even greater reduction in mail volume and declining revenue.

“We do not agree nor support the USPS Board of Governor’s action approving the Postmaster General’s plan to end six day delivery,” Gonzalez testified [PDF]. “The estimated savings of $3.1 billion per year will not offset the billions of dollars in revenues that will be diverted from postal coffers by millions of Americans seeking alternatives.”

Gonzalez said that the Postal Service’s projected loss of $238 billion over the next 10 years is spurious, and noted that while mail volume may never return to 2006 levels, the economy is showing signs of rebounding — including signs of growth in parcel delivery for the Postal Service.

Lawmakers should strongly consider ending the Postal Service’s obligation to pre-fund retiree healthcare liabilities, a requirement included in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, he said. Modest but steady increases in mail volume, coupled with repeals of “unreasonable requirements to pre-fund retiree health benefits will go a long way to stabilizing the Postal Service,” Gonzalez said.

“At a time when the USPS should be exploring every available means to increase volume and revenue, including compliance with contracts, regulations and statutes, the seriously flawed effort to cut services will only undermine the viability of postal services in this country.”

The Las Vegas hearing was the first of seven scheduled field hearings, where the PRC hopes to receive public input on the USPS initiative to eliminate Saturday delivery. Other witnesses included Yul Melonson, the Las Vegas District Manager for the USPS; Rich Griffin, Vice President of the Nevada State Association of Letter Carriers; as well as representatives from Postal Solutions, Inc., Southwest Gas Corporation, and Medco Health Solutions.

“The commission has developed a disciplined schedule to ensure a timely, thorough review of the Postal Service’s proposal,” PRC Chairman Ruth Y. Goldway said in an April 28 press release. “Our process will provide multiple opportunities for the public to be heard and for all the facts to be considered before the Commission issues its Advisory Opinion.”

Additional field hearings will take place in Sacramento, Dallas, Memphis, Chicago, Rapid City (SD), and will conclude on June 28 in Buffalo, NY.

AMERICAN POSTAL WORKER’S UNION (APWU) OFFICER CHARGED
WITH EMBEZZLEMENT OF UNION FUNDS AND WIRE FRAUD

(HOUSTON) – The former Southern Region Coordinator of the American Postal Worker’s Union (APWU) has been charged with embezzlement of union funds and wire fraud, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today. The two count indictment was returned on Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

Frankie L. Sanders, 46, of Houston, Texas, who held various offices with the APWU between 1992 and 2006 including the office of Southern Region Coordinator, surrendered to federal authorities this morning and is expected to make his initial appearance before a U. S. Magistrate Judge this afternoon.

According to the indictment, the American Postal Worker’s Union (APWU) is a national labor organization based in Washington, D.C. serving 262,000 mail service employees with five regional offices. The office for the Southern Region is located in Houston, Texas. Sanders served as the APWU Southern Region Coordinator from Feb. 4, 2004 through October 2006 and supervised a trusteeship of APWU Local 83 in New Orleans from December 2005 to March 2006.

The indictment alleges that Sanders embezzled more than $10,000 in union funds between July 2003 and through May 2006 by creating and submitting more than 20 false hotel receipts to the APWU national headquarters for reimbursement. The allegedly false reimbursement claims submitted by Sanders were paid by the APWU via wire transfer of funds and totaled approximately $13,145.

Sanders is currently employed as a postal clerk in downtown Houston.

Who’s scamming who?

The USPS Office of Inspector General recently launched a “Workers’ Compensation Fraud Campaign.” In typical OIG fashion, one of its strategies involves demonizing injured workers by having an actor posing as a postal employee cheerfully brag about cheating the Workers’ Comp program.

No one, of course, should be permitted to cheat the injury-compensation system. The system exists to provide benefits to employees who have sustained legitimate injuries while on duty. But OIG ignores the fact that less than 0.3 percent of the tens of thousands of Postal Service employees who get hurt while on the job are ever found guilty of defrauding the system. In fact, OIG’s most recent semi-annual report acknowledges that they had arrested only 18 people for claimant fraud. It’s simply unwarranted and unacceptable for the OIG to create a national campaign that smears injured workers by implying that so many are trying to scam the system.

One has to wonder whether it’s the OIG itself that is guilty of scamming the USPS . In Fiscal Year 2009, the OIG was appropriated $239.3 million in Postal Service funds from which, at its own admission, OIG “commits significant resources toward identifying claimants who defraud the system.”With well over 99 percent of the injured workforce proving to be honest and lawful regarding Workers’ Comp, how can OIG — an agency that is also responsible for combating waste and abuse — be exonerated from the very obligations it is commissioned to uphold?

Protect Yourself

Workers’ compensation fraud is a serious crime. Admission of guilt and actually being found guilty are one and the same: Offenders are branded as criminals.

Upon conviction, offenders are subject to repayment of benefits, fines, jail time in a federal facility, and removal. All too often, it is a simple lack of understanding as to what constitutes fraud that can place an employee in peril. So, as the OIG presses on in its campaign against injured workers, it is important to remember that the medical restrictions that apply at work also apply during personal life, i.e., at home, while shopping, driving, taking care of personal and family matters, and during recreational activities. The rule of thumb is that if you can’t do it at work, you can’t do it anywhere.

It is also important to remind employees to work within their restrictions. If physical capabilities have improved or worsened, employees should get their doctors to document the change in restrictions. Additionally, doctors who permit activities for therapeutic reasons should also include this information — along with the treatment rationale — in the employee’s medical record.

Disclosure and Your Rights

Treating physicians should be made aware that they are not required to disclose any information regarding a medical condition to OIG agents unless there is a court order requiring such disclosure.

If confronted by OIG agents, it is important for employees to know their rights. Many agents are on a mission to prove their worth, and they can be conniving. Employees are entitled to have a representative present and should remain silent until they have consulted with their steward or legal counsel — even when they are certain they aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing.

During investigatory interviews, union representatives may attempt to clarify facts and information, ask the purpose of an interview, or help an employee articulate a response or explanation.

When there are legal issues that need to be addressed, and/or an employee is the subject of a criminal investigation, it is absolutely appropriate for the employee to remain silent and to decline to sign any statements or fill out any forms until after legal counsel has been consulted.

APWU Industrial Relations Director Greg Bell has written two very informative articles detailing the rights of employees when they are confronted by Postal Inspectors or OIG agents. The articles first appeared in the Nov./Dec.2005 and May/June 2006 issues of this magazine and can be found in their entirety on the Industrial Relations Web pages.

Source: APWU

Click here for exchange of correspondence on FMLA forms

Sharon Young, a Sales and Service Associate at the Norristown Post Office, has been issued a Letter of Suspension following an incident with a customer who complained that Ms. Young did not assist her with filling out more than 100 customs forms for parcels the customer was mailing to Japan.

All Sales and Service Associates have received training instructions from postal management not to fill out forms for customers, and to provide the forms to the customers and ask them to step back to the front of the line when the forms are completed. The training instructions concerning international customs forms stem from regulations posted in the International Mail Manual. However, the Norristown Post Office management decided to skip over several levels of discipline and contradict Postal Handbooks and Manuals in an effort to “keep the customer happy.”

The Tri County First Area Local Chief Steward for Norristown is assisting Ms. Young with grievances regarding the suspension and accompanying harassment.

Source APWU:  Tri County First Area Local