The following message was sent to Local Presidents, Maintenance Craft Directors, Regional Coordinators and Maintenance Craft National Business Agents
Subject: National Award Explanation (5-7-9 case)
After multiple hearings and lengthy briefing, Arbitrator Das has issued his Award on the Maintenance Division’s Article 19 challenge to three preventive maintenance MMO’s published in 2000 (the case numbers are: Q98C-4Q-C 00183263/01002200). The grievance was sustained in part, denied in part and remanded in part. In the process, Arbitrator Das established principles for differentiating between semi-skilled and skilled maintenance work that we believe will benefit our craft.
We put forward three issues in this case. 1. What is the proper minimum skill level (MSL) for the task to be performed? 2. Is the Union entitled to the information the Postal Service used to establish the estimated time to perform a given task? 3. Is the Union entitled to the information the USPS utilized to establish their A, B, C preventative maintenance program?
We pursued these issues under Article 19 and the USPS never made any procedural challenges to whether Article 19 was applicable to MMO's. In fact, in their brief, the USPS stated, “The Postal Service issued the three MMO’s at issue pursuant to Article 19 of the National Agreement.”
There were several aspects to our Article 19 grievances. We claimed that the minimum skill level set for certain tasks outlined in the contested MMO’s was too low (primarily because the tasks were skilled work outside the scope of the Level 5 mechanic position), and that the estimated times for performance of these tasks were too short. We also demanded, as part of the grievance, engineering documentation for the severity levels or cut points for the frequency of preventive maintenance functions (i.e. — the A, B, C routes). In facing the first two issues, there is no question that we were prejudiced by the fact that virtually every task in dispute had appeared in previous DBCS MMO’s (MMO 048-94) and -- due to the considerations applicable at the time --were not challenged. Indeed, we were concerned that our failure to challenge these earlier MMO’s had opened the door to expansion of Level 5 work to skilled functions, and closing this door was our primary objective.
Das ruled that, where a minimum skill level associated with a DBCS preventive maintenance task appeared and was not challenged in a previous DBCS MMO. The Union had waived its right to challenge the pay level. This was a purely procedural point and he did not, therefore, decide the merits of our case that the MSL was wrong. Our position on the various checklist items and proper minimum skill level has been preserved (except for that specific DBCS). He did allow challenges to go forward with respect to minimum skill levels relating to other equipment (MPFSM and ICS) and also as to any new task.
Almost all of the challenged tasks fell into three basic categories:
1. Internal cleaning of machinery; 2. Checking operation of machinery by turning it or its components on and off; 3. Checking and inspecting equipment and components for operability and serviceability.
As a general matter, Das found preventive maintenance tasks that fell into categories 1 and 2 were semi-skilled, but that tasks that fell into category 3 required a Level 7 (now 8) mechanic. In this respect, Arbitrator Das held that (on page 19). . a systematic inspection that requires the exercise of judgment . . . “is not within the scope of semi-skilled tasks properly performed by a Level 5 (soon to be 6) mechanic. The Arbitrator clearly defined that a “... task that calls for an exercise of judgment as to whether the equipment or component is sufficiently damaged, worn, bent and/or misaligned as to require corrective action.” is not properly assigned to an MM-S. The exercise of judgment was the basis for all our claims of higher-level work. This is a very important principle, which our Division has fought for over the years.
During the hearings, the Postal Service took the position that current MM-5s could perform the challenged duties because the MM-S could be trained to do the task and may possess the individual ability to perform the work. The APWU position was that this did not reflect the bargain of the parties and that the ability of an individual MM-S does not change the proper pay level for the work performed. Arbitrator Das stated (page 14) that, “As the Union points out, the skill level issue does not relate to individual capability or trainability, but to whether the task falls within the scope of the Level 5 position as defined in the SPD.” (Standard Position Description).
Consistent with his ruling on minimum skill levels, Das ruled that, where an estimated time appeared in a previous MMO and was not challenged, the Union had to show a significant changed circumstance to overturn the estimate. However, Das found the USPS case was insufficient with respect to new tasks and tasks which involve new techniques, such as vacuuming machinery, and, therefore, the estimated times had to be reexamined by both parties. Receiving the proper time for vacuuming vs. blowing out the equipment is a significant point for the Maintenance craft. Additionally, we secured the right to challenge the estimated times under Article 19. Das retained jurisdiction to resolve any disputes.
As to the A, B, C issue, Das stated: “The Postal Service has not established a valid basis for why such documentation should not be provided to the Union so that it can adequately evaluate the A-B-C severity guidelines that have been included in those MMO’s. Accordingly, the Postal Service is directed to provide such documentation to the Union.” (page 31). This is precisely what we demanded at the arbitration. The Union will have the chance to review these reports and contest any cut point we believe is not appropriate.
We are presently addressing the Postal Service at this level regarding the implementation of this award. It is our hope that this award will bring some degree of integrity back into the occupational groups and result in proper staffing at local level.
Yours in union solidarity,
Steven G. Raymer Gary Kloepfer Greg See Idowu Balogun
