It’s no secret that the APWU has been frustrated over the Postal Service’s repeated violations of Article 32.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which governs subcontracting in the Motor Vehicle Service Craft. The membership as a whole has felt as though compliance with Article 32 was nonexistent. And while the APWU filed multiple grievances concerning the subcontracting of our work, it often seemed there was no light at the end of the tunnel.
The APWU’s concerns were not without cause. Years ago, Arbitrators Richard Mittenthal and Carlton Snow ruled that Article 32 is a procedural provision, requiring only that the employer give “due consideration” to five factors before subcontracting. In the eyes of these arbitrators, the Postal Service’s obligation related primarily to the decision-making process.
However, the 2010-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the “Contracting or Insourcing of Contracted Services” Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) made cost the primary factor.
Arbitrator Stephen Goldberg reinforced that principle in a 2013 ruling on a grievance protesting management’s attempt to contract out all Postal Vehicle Service operations in California. Arbitrator Goldberg wrote, “The Postal Service can no longer justify contracting out work that would be less expensive to keep in house on the ground that it has given due consideration.”
Despite the teeth that the language in the 2010 CBA gave the union, management’s failure to properly notify the union of subcontracting remained a source of conflict. The Postal Service has consistently found it difficult to follow a process, whether established through its own handbooks and manuals or through collective bargaining. The process outlined in Article 32 was no different; as far as management was concerned, Article 32 might as well not existed.
Finally Hits a Snag
On April 19, 2011, the APWU filed a dispute before Arbitrator Shyam Das alleging that the Postal Service had continuously violated the provisions of Article 15 and 32 by failing to notify the union of Highway Contract Route (HCR) renewals or by notifying the national union after the renewals had been let.
The union cited 212 violations in 2010 alone and asserted that this could not be considered “an isolated incident,” as the Postal Service had claimed in a well-known 2004 St. Petersburg case.
The union contended there was a systemic and pervasive failure by the Postal Service at the national level to provide the required notice in hundreds of cases. The Postal Service knowingly and repeatedly violated Article 32.2, blatantly abrogating the contract.
Light at the End of the Tunnel
After months of waiting for a decision on the case, on Aug. 18, Arbitrator Das ruled that the Postal Service violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by notifying the union of subcontracting awards after they had been let. He ordered the Postal Service to cease and desist such violations and to comply with the notification and procedural provisions of Article 32.2.B before it awards HCR contracts. Arbitrator Das further directed the Postal Service to comply with the following remedy:
- Within six months of the date of this Award (unless otherwise agreed), the Postal Service shall convert the 110 (or whatever number there continue to be) disputed routes remaining in service (out of the original 212 cited violations) to PVS service for a four-year period.
- By agreement, the parties may substitute other route(s) to be converted to PVS service pursuant to this order based on particular circumstances.
- Arbitrator Das retained jurisdiction to resolve any matters relating to implementation of the remedy.
The MVS Division officers believe that this is a significant award for the craft.