SMALL OFFICE ISSUES

Are Stamp sales making you Looney?	PTF Hourly Guarantees
Can you still be held liable for a 'known customer' check?	Window Clerk Alert
	Postmasters Performing Window Work
Crossing Crafts	Sick Leave and Annual Leave for PTFs (including LOANER clerks)
Are you a Special Postal Clerk (P-6) and don't know it???	Time and Travel
PMRs (Postmaster Reliefs)	The "KEY" to winning some Window Shortages

The sale of Daffy Duck stamps caused two clerks recently to go Looney trying to figure out why their drawers came up short by hundreds of $$$. The reason: these clerks had been placing the sale of Daffy Duck stamps into AIC 231 instead of the correct AIC 097. By doing this, they were not reducing their accountability. AIC 231 is for the sale of retail Warner Bros. products. AIC 097 is for the sale of Looney Tunes stamps. After several hours of going back through their 1412s I was able to establish a clear pattern which began when Daffy Duck stamps went on sale. The evidence became overwhelming when all entries placed into AIC 231 were divisible exactly by $3.30 (the price of a Daffy Duck sheet). The grievances were settled at Step 2, the Letters of Demand rescinded and the clerks placed back into tolerance.

The answer is YES. It was common practice for the clerks in one office to write "kn" on the back of a check along with their initials and date. Everyone knew that the "kn" stood for a "known" customer. Everyone, but the Spokane District Finance office. When the check bounced, the clerk who took the check was issued a direct Letter of Demand from finance. The reason: she had not followed the proper procedure for accepting checks. The procedure as outlined in the F-1 on page 53 Section 312.3 is very specific. "If a customer is known by name to a postal employee on duty in the unit, this employee writes "Customer Known" and initials on the front of the check". Have the clerks in your office been made aware of this very specific section in the F-1?

Time and time again I hear new employees in small offices refer to themselves as Clerk--Carriers. Wrong! You are either a Clerk OR a Carrier. Only under specific circumstances can you work outside the craft which is listed on your PS Form 50.

Under Article 7.2 the gaining craft must have an overabundance of work and the loosing craft a lack of work. Not one or the other, but BOTH.

Lack of work means casuals not working and PTFs getting less than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day. Overabundance would require that all the limits of the contract are being met, PTFs to 12 hours, Overtime Desired List to 12, Non-ODL limits met yet there are still critical dispatches, deliveries etc. that can't be met.

Arbitrator Joseph Gentile decided that the USPS violated Articles 19 and 25 by refusing to properly compensate Level 5 clerks who were performing Special Postal Clerk duties in St. Maries, Idaho.

THE KEY ISSUE: Who is "in charge" or "running the office" on days when there isn't a postmaster or supervisor present? On Saturdays, the St. Maries office is open and employees are working. There is no postmaster or supervisor present. The senior clerk provides guidance and leadership, handles problems of a routine nature and decides when it is necessary to contact a supervisor at his home or other location. Are these the duties of a Level 5 Clerk? NO! These are the CORE duties of a Level 6 Special Postal Clerk.

During the arbitration, management stated that "The District would not permit our office to have a Level 6 position. It was the District's policy not to detail a Level 5 Clerk into a higher level for one day or less". Management went on to state that "the clerks are able to perform their areas of responsibility within their position description without supervision or direction from another clerk". The postmaster said "this office runs itself and the clerks know their jobs...". Arbitrator Gentile, however, observed "it is unrealistic to expect a first class post office to simply "run itself" for a tour absent any leadership whatsoever".

As of July 1, 1994, due to Arbitrator Gentiles decision (WOC-5R-C-13304), the St. Maries post office now pays its Level 5 senior clerk (either regular or PTF) Level 6 Special Postal Clerk pay EVERY Saturday and other days when the postmaster is gone for more than six hours for ANY REASON including route inspections, part-day annual leave or meetings. Remember, this Special Postal Clerk is NOT a management position. Back pay was also awarded. If the circumstances in your office sound like the above, please contact your steward or e-mail me immediately.

Another was won (July 1999)!!! and we are continuing to win these grievances in 2002!!

If so, they are in violation of the contract. It is a violation for any PMR to perform clerk work in an office where the postmaster is present. PMRs are only to be utilized when the postmaster is gone...that is why they are called Postmaster Reliefs. It is also a violation for PMRs to work in lieu of clerks.

Several grievances have been filed and won on this issue; back pay has been awarded to clerks who should have been performing the work. After several of these grievances, the Spokane, WA Customer Service District sent out a letter to area postmasters which read:

"The Postmaster Relief/Replacement position is to be used for relief and replacement service only and is not to be used to supplement the regular workforce. The PMR and Postmaster should not be on duty at the same time".

This is still an ongoing problem especially in small offices. If this is occurring in your office or if you know of this happening in another office, please contact your steward or e-mail me immediately.

Occasionally, window clerks accept a bad check from a customer and if they fail to follow proper procedures, they may even be held liable for the monetary loss. This is particularly true if the customer was on a "bad check list" at the time the transaction occurred. A recent Step 4 decision, W90C-1E-C-93038964, out of Denver has now provided some assistance to clerks in this situation.

The Postal Service must go after the customer FIRST, before asking the clerk for any money. This Step 4 requires the Postal Service to exhaust all collection efforts against the customer prior to turning to the clerk. This Step 4 also provides a 180 day period for the USPS to get the money from the customer.

In short, if you are issued a letter of demand for accepting a bad check, the Union should request evidence from the Postal Service to see if in fact they made an effort to collect the money from the customer. If they did not make that effort, the Union has a right to demand they do so and defer any issuance of a letter of demand against the clerk for 6 months. If this is occurring in your office or if you know of this happening in another office, please contact your steward or e-mail me immediately.

How much sick leave or annual leave is a PTF entitled to? The Employee Labor Manual states that a PTF can use sick leave or annual leave on any day they are SCHEDULED to work except holidays. As stated in the ELM:

3. 80 hours in any one pay period. IF A DISPUTE ARISES AS TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS A PTF EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED TO WORK, the schedule will be considered to have been equal to the average hours worked by other PTFs in the same work location on the day in question.

LOANER CLERKS, however, have a different set of circumstances. If you are a loaner clerk in 3 different offices and are scheduled for 24 hours TOTAL for the week, how much sick leave are you entitled to? The simple answer is 24. However, when this happened to a loaner clerk and he submitted his 3971 (leave slip) to his HOME office for 24 hours, he was denied the 24 hours by the postmaster and was only allowed the 8 hours he was scheduled to work in THAT office!! The union filed a grievance and won but in the future all PTF loaner clerks should be aware that they need to fill out a separate leave slip for EACH office they are scheduled to work. If this is occurring in your office or if you know of this happening in another office, please contact your steward or e-mail me immediately.

There seems to be alot of confusion in the smaller offices dealing with the correct payment for Time and Travel when attending training. It is particularly confusing up here in northern Idaho because our training is done in a completely different state; specifically Spokane, Washington.

The following information has been taken from a packet I received from Margaret Leaf, our APWU National Business Agent:

Travel time includes time spent by an employee moving from one location to another (excluding meal times). Travel time starts when you leave your home if your destination is a training facility which is outside the 'Local Commuting Area'; it ends when you return home.

The term 'Local Commuting Area' refers to the suburban area immediately surrounding the employee's official duty station and within a radius of 50 miles. Therefore, most cities in Idaho would NOT qualify as "the suburban area" to Spokane since it is in an entirely different state. In this case an employee should be paid at the non-local per diem rate plus mileage plus travel time or provided lodging and a per diem.

An employee is entitled to overtime pay when their travel time plus training time exceeds 8 hours. If this is occurring in your office or if you know of this happening in another office, please contact your steward or e-mail me immediately. Barb Neal:

The "KEY" to winning some Window Shortages is to always remember to check on the duplicate Key Envelope. Management has the responsibility to safeguard all duplicate key envelopes. More and more postmasters are becoming lax in securing key envelopes properly. If this is the case in your office that means your accountability has not been protected and secured as mandated by the ASM (Administrative Support Manual) Section 273. This means that if your drawer is short and there are clear violations of the F-1 and the ASM, you CANNOT be held accountable for a shortage. Look for violations in regards to:

If you find violations in the above areas after a shortage, the corrective action should be to request:

3. and that the employee be relieved of any indebtedness which may occur during the audit.

If this is occurring in your office or if you know of this happening in another office, please contact your steward or e-mail me immediately.

· In a small office, PTFs are guaranteed 2 hours for everyday they are scheduled or requested to work.

· If a PTF has a split shift and returns within 2 hours, there is no new guarantee. If a PTF has a split shift and returns after a 2-hour break, a new 2-hour guarantee takes effect.

· There is a 4-hour “call back” guarantee in any size office where a PTF has left for the day and then was “called back” in to work. **

· If management chooses to send you home before you have worked your 4 hours, you are still paid for 4 hours.

· If you choose, for personal reasons, to leave, you waive your 4-hour guarantee and are paid only for your actual hours worked.

In 1994, a postmaster (Level 15), started working the window for the first time in over 20 years. The clerk contacted me and I filed a grievance to stop the postmaster from doing window work.

In 1999, USPS Labor Relations and the APWU Union's Arbitration advocate entered into a pre-arbitration settlement. Labor Relations knew it was a loser for the USPS. Prior to the settlement, the Union advocate contacted me and asked me what I wanted. I told him I wanted the Postmaster to stop working the window. An agreement was reached and the pre-arbitration settlement was signed. After the pre-arb in April of 1999, the Postmaster stopped working the window for 6 months.

In the fall of 1999, the Manager of Post Office Operations (MPOO) put out an order to all Postmasters that they would not exceed the prior year's window hours. It was at this point that the MPOO ordered the Postmaster back on the window. The Postmaster called Labor Relations. They told him to keep track of his window hours because the USPS would have to pay, since it was a clear violation of the pre-arbitration settlement.

I was contacted by the clerk in the office who said the Postmaster was ordered back on the window. I filed an enforcement grievance and asked that the remedy be to "cease and desist from having the Postmaster work the window" with clear language in the settlement. Also, in a good faith effort to resolve the issue the Union agreed to settle for only a "token payment" just so it was on the record. Labor Relations agreed. The payment was made and the Postmaster quit working the window again.

When the MPOO found out, he again ordered the Postmaster back on the window! At that point the Union called Labor Relations and told them it was going to file an unfair labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The USPS Labor Relations Specialists then asked the Union to give them a few days to get support from the Manager of Human Resources in the hopes of getting the ego-crazed MPOO to back off. A few days later, Labor Relations called and said the Manager told them to fight their own battles with the MPOO. The MPOO then enlisted the help of the Manager of Labor Relations to take over the case. The grievance was then denied and was elevated to Step 3. The Union went forward and filed its first charge with the National Labor Relations Board against the MPOO/USPS because of his continued interference and its inability to abide by their settlements.

In November 2000, a Step 3 settlement was made between the Regional USPS Labor Relations and the Regional APWU. Again, everyone agreed that the Postmaster would stop working the window and this time the USPS would make a payment of approximately 445 hours to the clerk in the office. Management's representative, even wrote in the settlement that there was no way the USPS would prevail if this were sent to arbitration because of the prior two settlements.

At this point, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, sent a letter to all parties involved (including the MPOO) and cited Management's Regional decision to settle the case once and for all (this was now the third settlement agreement). The National Labor Relations Board's Regional Director then warned all parties (including the MPOO) not to interfere. Finally, the Postmaster stopped working the window after the Step 3 settlement.

Within days, when the MPOO found out, he again ordered the Postmaster back on the window, and the Union filed a third enforcement grievance & another NLRB charge. The Union met with the NLRB attorney in February 2001 and the attorney said "if ever there was a case to take forward, this is it." Keep in mind that the NLRB almost always defers charges back to the grievance process. The Union wrote in its last enforcement grievance:

"It is a sad day for labor relations when settlements and agreements which are signed in good faith by both parties are threatened by a MPOO's attempt to abrogate the authority of Labor Relations and to enlist the complicity of it's manager."

The hearing was scheduled to be held in a federal courthouse (August 2001), all the significant parties had been subpoenaed, and the judge was flying in from Atlanta. However, at the midnight hour, the USPS settled out of court for almost $20,000 and, most importantly, an NLRB Board Posting in the small Idaho post office. Bottom line, the Postmaster will not, under any circumstances, perform window work. If the Postmaster does, the USPS will be found in contempt of court and face federal court charges to that effect.

Questions?? E-mail me, Chris Santos at IAPWU@aol.com