{"id":10822,"date":"2015-05-04T07:19:41","date_gmt":"2015-05-04T12:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/?p=10822"},"modified":"2015-05-04T07:19:41","modified_gmt":"2015-05-04T12:19:41","slug":"postmasters-reporting-requirements-on-the-e1260","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/2015\/05\/04\/postmasters-reporting-requirements-on-the-e1260\/","title":{"rendered":"Postmasters: Reporting requirements on the e1260"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following is from the National League of Postmasters<\/a><\/p>\n

There has been many divergent field opinions about whether bargaining unit work performed by an APO Postmaster in one of the RMPO\u2019s for which that APO Postmaster is responsible should be recorded for e1260 reporting purposes. The following is guidance that HQ Labor Relations gave to HQ Operations, Labor Relations in the field and other authorities on the morning of April 29th, 2015.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In response to some inquires, here is the reasoning behind our decision that any clerk craft work performed by a level 18 PM in one of their RMPO\u2019s is to be counted toward the allowable 15 hours per service week. The long standing dispute that was resolved in the 1.6B \u201cglobal settlement\u201d was the issue regarding a PM\u2019s performance of clerk work in small post offices that have clerk staffing.<\/p>\n

Beginning with the Garrett national arbitration award back in the 70\u2019s to the Das award in 2005 and the numerous field level awards in between the arbitrators found that the parties negotiated contractual terms set forth in Article 1.6B were clearly intended to limit the amount of clerk work a PM could perform in small offices and that the phrase in a PM\u2019s job description \u201cwhen necessary\u201d was further evidence of that intent. Also, bear in mind that our circumstances today \u2013 decreased mail volume and financial distress – were exactly the same circumstances we claimed in our position before Garrett back in the day and again in front of Das.<\/p>\n

The PostPlan arbitration award and the subsequent remedy resolution resulted in the RMPO\u2019s becoming clerk craft bargaining unit offices assigned to the jurisdiction of a level 18 PM. To now start another battle with the union with a claim that RMPO\u2019s were not included in the \u201cglobal settlement\u201d and therefore the PM may perform clerk work in those offices with no limitations would fall miserably in arbitration for the following reasons.<\/p>\n

The \u201cglobal settlement\u201d was intended to put the issue to bed permanently. The Service cannot change the conditions via PostPlan and then claim the new landscape with RMPO\u2019s was not covered by the parties\u2019 agreement. We do not bargain in bad faith. The RMPO\u2019s are staffed with bargaining unit employees only. An arbitrator could find that any \u201creplacement\u201d work should not be performed by a PM, but rather only by another BU employee. The office level was upgraded to 18 based on the addition of the RMPO\u2019s and they are therefore viewed as part of the level 18 \u201cinstallation\u201d and thus, the work hour limits in level 18 offices are applicable. Lastly, see the results of the arbitration awards from Das and Goldberg on the disputes the parties have arbitrated over the course of the past four years (as the union opened each case advising the arbitrators of the 4.5 billion dollars in savings the Service got from the union\u2019s agreements in the 2010 contract and the agreements the Service made in return that have still not been fulfilled) to see how the arbitrators have viewed our positions.<\/p>\n

\"National<\/a>
National League of Postmasters<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following is from the National League of Postmasters There has been many divergent field opinions about whether bargaining unit work performed by an APO Postmaster in one of the RMPO\u2019s for which that APO Postmaster is responsible should be recorded for e1260 reporting purposes. The following is guidance that HQ Labor Relations gave to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":555,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-breaking","last_archivepost"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10822"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10823,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10822\/revisions\/10823"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}