POSTAL 4 MEET ASSOCIATE SERIES

Here are some key paragraphs from the Brent Award on the issue of “significant impact” under Article 32 of the National Agreement: Below are some excerpts, although all NPMHU representatives are encouraged to read the entire decision.

POSTAL 4 MEET ASSOCIATE SERIES

To reach these conclusions, the National Arbitrator issued a series of interpretations that will prove helpful to Mail Handler representatives and advocates in future subcontracting disputes. The Employer also neglected to consider the potential impact of future expansion of the STC network when determining that subcontracting of the Kansas City STC would have no significant impact on the NPMHU bargaining unit. The Employer failed to provide the Union with an opportunity, as required by the Article 32 Memorandum of Understanding, to propose different percentages of, or hourly rates for, MHA’s to ensure competitiveness with outside services before the Employer decided to subcontract the Kansas City STC. The Postal Service violated the National Agreement by the manner in which the Postal Service implemented the subcontracting of the Kansas City, Kansas STC. As a summary of his award, Arbitrator Brent stated as follows: In the alternative, USPS also claimed that its decisions in Kansas City and elsewhere were eminently reasonable.Įach of the USPS management arguments were soundly rejected by National Arbitrator Daniel Brent.

Serving as witnesses for the NPMHU were Chris Bentley, President of Local 297 covering Kansas and Western Missouri Teresa Harmon, Manager of the National CAD and Paul Hogrogian, National President.Īttempting to excuse these violations of Article 32, the Postal Service claimed that “o significant impact to the bargaining unit is anticipated,” and that therefore Article 32’s procedural and substantive rules did not apply to any decision to subcontract one or more STCs.

We also argued that the Postal Service is required, among other things, to consider the views of the Union before making its subcontracting decision, to respond to the Union’s views in its decisional document, and to not make any final decisions on contracting out work prior to discussing the matter with the Union.

Specifically, the Union argued that both Article 32.1B of the National Agreement and the MOU re Article 32 provide for advance notice and discussions with the Union while the Postal Service is “developing the initial Comparative Analysis Report.” Six days of hearings were held ending in October 2021, during which the NPMHU argued that the USPS action was a blatant violation of Article 32 of the parties’ National Agreement, as well as a violation of the Memorandum of Understanding Re Article 32 that has appeared in all National Agreements since 2013. The National Union initiated a grievance at the Step 4 or National level, followed by additional grievances during subsequent months arising from similar situations in Chicago, Orlando, Atlanta, Washington DC, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Southern California, and Northern California. This case began in August 2019, when the Postal Service first notified the NPMHU at the National level that the Postal Service had decided to subcontract all mail handler work at the Kansas City STC, scheduled for opening and staffing in September 2019. The award also should apply to several other STCs that have been subcontracted, and favorably interprets several prior National awards under Article 32 and related contract provisions. We are extremely pleased to announce that the NPMHU has prevailed in National arbitration concerning the Postal Service’s decision to subcontract Mail Handler work at the Kansas City Surface Transportation Center or STC. Kansas City Surface Transfer Center (STC) AugMemorandum to Local Presidents re: National Arbitration Decision: Article 32 and the Subcontracting of the Kansas City STC AUGArbitrator Brent Rules on Subcontracting of

Postal 4 meet associate