H0C-NA-C-19007
On December 19, 2001, the Union completed the testimony and evidentiary phase of our grievance protesting the changes made to Subchapter 530 of the Administrative Support Manual in 1992, which were subsequently published in ASM Issue 9.

The presentation took three days to complete, July 26th, October 17th and December 19th. James Lingberg and Randy Sutton testified on behalf of the Union regarding the contents of the meetings that occurred with the Postal Service which included the content of the discussions, the explanation provided by the Postal Service for the modifications to Subchapter 530 as well as the documentation the Postal Service relied upon to make the modifications.

The Union's case was presented by Melinda Holmes Esq. of O'Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson and Gary Kloepfer, National Representative at Large, was the case manager. Following receipt of the transcripts both sides will submit Post Hearing Briefs. It is expected that we will receive a final decision by the end of March.

Briefly, this grievance was filed after the Postal Service made massive revisions to Subchapter 530 of the ASM. Although the Postal Service made multiple changes, the Union found the changes that eliminated the echelons of maintenance, modifications to the definitions of a maintenance capable office as well as non-maintenance capable offices, modifications to the specific subcontracting provisions for postal equipment, window cleaning and snow and ice removal as well as the cleaning services to tenant spaces to be the most offensive These were the primary issues we took forward as these were the most damaging to our Craft.

During the hearing the Postal Service claimed that the echelons of maintenance were eliminated as part of its plan to move automated mail processing equipment, the CSBCS, away from maintenance capable offices. The Postal Service claimed the movement of this equipment to the non-maintenance capable offices necessitated that the operator perform some maintenance due to the fact that skilled maintenance employees were not employed in the non-maintenance capable offices. In that regard it created the Senior Mail Processor position which was subsequently accepted by the APWU.

While one may possibly argue that this reason could possibly justify a modification to the Echelons of Maintenance, it certainly did not justify the elimination of the Echelons. The clear value of the Echelons was the clarity they brought to work jurisdictional issues within the Maintenance Craft as well as a protection of our work from non-maintenance employees.

The Union's grievance protesting the modifications to Subchapter 530 were filed under Article 19 of the then current National Agreement. Article 19 places a burden upon the Postal Service to demonstrate that any handbook change that effects hours, wages and working conditions are fair, reasonable and equitable. That burden rests solely with the Postal Service and we believe that the Postal Service failed to demonstrate that its unilateral changes met this burden. It is difficult to believe that unilateral modifications to a handbook, which is an integral part of our National Agreement, which removes work from the Maintenance Craft could be viewed as fair, reasonable or equitable.

Gary Kloepfer
National Representative at Large

www.apwu.org

Headquarters Maintenance Officers

Steve Raymer- Director
Bobby Donelson- Assistant Director A
Jake Jackson- Assistant Director B
Gary Kloepfer- National Representative at Large
(202) 842 - 4213
(202) 289 - 3746 - FAX