Article 34: Work and/or Time Standards

A: “The principle of a Fair Day’s work for a Fair Day’s pay is recognized by all parties to this agreement.” This language begins the prelude to the contents of Article 34 of the National Agreement.

Section B, of Article 34 continues by stating: “The Employer agrees that any work measurement system or time or work standards shall be fair, reasonable and equitable.”

Part C, of Article 34 further states: “When the Employer determines the need to implement any new Nationally developed and Nationally applicable work or time standards, it will first conduct a test or tests of the standards in one or more installations. (note, emphasis added)

I will skip sections D and E and move to Section F as relates to this article.

Section F, in part states: “The arbitrator’s award will be issued no later than 60 days after the commencement of the arbitration hearing. During the period prior to the issuance of the arbitrator’s award, the new work or time standards will not be implemented beyond the test cities, and no new tests of the new standards will be initiated.” (emphasis added)

Section G : “The issue before the arbitrator will be whether the national concepts involved in the new work or time standards are fair, reasonable and equitable.

I am also skipping Section H and moving to Section I which states in part: “ the Union shall be permitted through qualified representatives to make time or work studies in the test cities.” The Union may also only take 150 days from the date they give notice to management that they wish to conduct tests. In addition, the Employer agrees that during the Union test, they will postpone implementation in the test cities for the first 90 days.

Currently, the NALC and USPS are supposed to begin an arbitration concerning the alleged Consolidation Case test on November 22, 2019. As you can see by reading the parts of Article 34 that I have cited, this will be a complicated issue and it will become more complicated if the NALC decides to conduct their own time and work studies.

Presently, I do not know if the NALC will conduct their own “test(s). Also, if such a test is conducted, will they do such a test in every city that the Postal Service has been testing. This might be in over 60 facilities. The cost and resources that would need to be utilized from this writer’s perspective would be astronomical for the NALC if that happens.

Realistically, the NALC has been collecting data and this could be used to refine any “test” that might be conducted. In different “test” cities, I believe management has implemented different systems for casers and streeters in different cities. This would be an inconsistency and therefore a challenge to the requirement that the work and time standards are fair, reasonable and equitable. How can methods in one test city be different than those in another? Remember, Article 34 is supposed to be a National standard and not a local one.

In my opinion, the current consolidated casing system cannot be called fair, reasonable or equitable if approximately 25% of the carriers will spend more than ½ of their work hours in the office and the other 75% will spend 95% of their time on the street. Also, the duties that casers have and that on many occasions are not being performed can place the streeters in direct conflict with each other.

Casers are supposed to do the holds, forwards and removals and other office duties but do not always have the time. In turn, Streeters will not know who are the forwards, holds or removals until customers start to complain about the mis-deliveries. This is further compounded because so much mail is automated and again the casers do not check the DPS and FFS for the forwards, holds or removals.

Consolidated Casing is taking the word “service” from Postal Service. You can figure out what will remain in the “Postal” Service. I believe that there are many other points that can be challenged about whether this “test” is fair, reasonable or equitable. The NALC needs to do all, in its power to “defeat” this effort to destroy the Postal Service and our livelihoods.

It is unfortunate that the recent court decision by Judge James E. Boasberg deferred making a decision based on the parties having an arbitration process to remedy this so-called test. Although he claims that “he was not unsympathetic to plight of letter carriers he did not conclude that their physical complaint were equivalent to a United Steelworkers case” where the court enjoined management from changing a policy because it concluded reducing the number of workers staffing an open heath furnace “presented a risk of serious and irreparable physical injury” to the workers. The Judge instead, concluded in NALC’s case that the issue would be settled through the arbitration process and did not grant any relief to the letter carriers.

Finally, as previously stated, this is a complicated issue and in the opinion of this writer our National Leaders need to do all within their power to prevent this program from ever being implemented if the Postal Service is to survive as well as the well-being of its members. Wishing you and Your Families a Happy Thanksgiving and Happy Holidays for the New Year!