Arbitrator Das Sustains APWU Grievance On Deprival of Retreat Rights

By on

Arbitrator Das Sustains APWU Grievance on Deprival of Retreat Rights
 Dispute Over Consignment of Unassigned Regulars to NTFT Schedules Denied

In an award issued June 29 [PDF], Arbitrator Shyam Das sustained the APWU's grievance over the denial of excessed employees' retreat rights, merely denied it in a dispute over the assignment of unassigned regulars to non-traditional full-fourth dimension (NTFT) schedules.

The event in the get-go case (Case#Q11C-4Q-C11322494) was the USPS' refusal to permit excessed employees to retreat into NTFT duty assignments posted for bid subsequent to the conversion of part-time regulars (PTRs) and function-time flexibles (PTFs) in August 2011.

Arbitrator Das rejected all of the Employer'south arguments, finding that "[t]here is no contractual provision that supports the Postal Service's action in precluding employees from exercising [their] retreat correct until initial local placement of converted part-time employees was completed."

Noting that the Postal Service failed to raise, let alone obtain the Union's agreement to, such a restriction on the right of excessed employees to exercise their acknowledged retreat rights during negotiations, Arbitrator Das determined that the Post's unilateral conclusion to disallow the practice of retreat right under these circumstances violated the Commonage Bargaining Understanding. The issue of remedy was remanded to the parties and the arbitrator retained jurisdiction to resolve any remedial disputes.

The effect in the 2nd instance (Case #Q11C-4Q-C11322481) was the USPS conversion of PTRs and PTFs in August 2011 to unassigned regular status with temporary NTFT schedules.

Noting that this case raises circuitous issues, Arbitrator Das concluded that in the particular context of the "unique circumstances" of the August 27th, 2011 conversion of some 9,000 affected converted PTRs and PTFs to full-time status pending initial establishment of a significant number of NTFT duty assignments, those converted employees had "no significant basis for complaint since they could be assigned under the NTFT MOU to residual NTFT duty assignments with equivalent schedules and had no reasonable expectation that they would, or would not, be placed in traditional schedules upon their conversion."

The arbitrator reasoned that on the tape of this case, " information technology is reasonable to conclude that — although non specifically addressed in the NTFT MOU or other written agreement –- the parties during their negotiations contemplated that the Post would take established NTFT duty assignments before it was required to convert PTs to full-time. Stated differently, the parties did non contemplate that there would be an acting period between conversion and establishment of NTFT duty assignments…"

As a outcome, Arbitrator Das connected, "[due west]hile the parties did not expressly provide for [the conversion into NTFT schedules] in their agreement, they did not…contemplate the state of affairs in which this arose."

Noting that "the converted employees were not being directly converted into NTFT duty assignments to the possible detriment of other employees who might have exercised their seniority to obtain such assignments" and that the USPS began to post the newly established NTFT duty assignments within a month or 2, Arbitrator Das denied the grievance.