| Adriano "Agie" Measso, Director | ||
| Joe "Capo" Capobianco, Asst. Dir. | ||
| Bill Kreutter, Maintenance Coordinator | ||
| Tour 1 Stewards | Tour 2 Stewards | Tour 3 Stewards |
|
Dwayne Efford (P/Ls 120,121/122) |
Brenda Jackson (P/Ls 219,226,228, 229) |
William Huggins (P/Ls320,323, 325, 329) |
| Michael Garry (P/Ls 124,126,128) | Robin Milow (P/Ls221/222,224) | Thomas Haggans (P/Ls 324, 326, 328) |
| Michael Swan (P/Ls 123, 125, 129) | Curtis Robertson (P/Ls 220,223,225) | Antwane Reeves (P/Ls 321/322) |
| SENIORITY | ||
| FILLING VACANT POSITIONS | L.M.O.U. | |
| MAINT. SKILLS &DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM | MPE VS MM 6 |
|
| MSS & NON-MSS POSITIONS | Step 4 Settlements |
TO: Maintenance National Business Agents
"All Craft" National Business Agents
During a recent seminar there was a discussion regarding the application of and background to the following question and answer from the 1998 National Negotiations:
TRAINING
An employee has successfully completed equipment training in the past but none of that equipment is now in the office. Is the employee required to attend and successfully complete training on the new equipment?
Answer: Yes.
The discussion focused on several applications, such as the number of years the employee has been employed in the Postal Service as well as what, if anything may occur, should the employee fail the training.
The above referenced question and answer was submitted by the Postal Service. It expressed concern that it had employees that could not work on equipment in the facility due to a lack of training. In addition, it took the position that it could discharge and/or downgrade an employee that could not perform maintenance on any equipment in the facility.
Based on the Postal Service’s concern it was agreed that in situations where "all" equipment that the maintenance employee had been trained to maintain no longer existed within the facility, the employee could be required to attend Maintenance job training in accordance with Article 38 Section 6. In addition, it was agreed that the employee would have to successfully complete the training. This decision was made after reviewing grievance history on this subject. This history revealed a Step 4 settlement, E1T-5B-C-1126, from June 25, 1982 in which the parties agreed:
The question raised in this case involved the grievant’s being downgraded from MPE Level 6 to Custodian as a result of failing to pass a training course at OPTOS
During our discussion, we mutually agreed that the action to downgrade the grievant was not improper. We also agreed that in view of all the circumstances involved in this case, the grievant is to be given the next training billet for the course in question. This action is being taken in full and final settlement of this case.
In addition we found a National Arbitration award from National Arbitrator Richard Bloch, in case H1T-5H-C-11097. In this case, the Arbitrator agreed that the Postal Service could remove someone from the PER for failing formal training for their position. In denying our grievance the arbitrator embraced a philosophy that implied a negative action could occur should an employee fail developmental training. On page 7 he stated:
Unanswered by the contract, however, is the question of what happens if an individual fails to successfully complete the developmental training. One may conceive of a variety of possibilities: For example (as the Union here suggests), the person might remain in precisely the same position on the list and therefore be first In line to receive the same training again; he or she might remain in that slot for the purpose of receiving training on another aspect of the desired job; the person might be moved down on the list until such time as the normal rotation brings him or her back into a priority position; or (as Management contends) the person might be removed from the list entirely, as was the case here. Conceivably there are other alternatives. The National Agreement does not address this question
.On page 9, however, the arbitrator goes directly to the question of an employee possibly not meeting the basic qualifications for the position. The arbitrator states:
Some training, while important, may only be on a limited portion of the job. It may be that failure under those circumstances should not reasonably be equated with overall lack of qualifications. I3ut other training may be on job elements that are comprehensive and that constitute the core and character of the classification. Failure in those circumstances may be reflective of an inability to progress in areas that are essential to successful incumbency. When, in the exercise of reasonable judgment, it may be determined that failure of developmental training is tantamount to demonstrating a lack of broad, basic qualifications, then continued standing on a register requiring those same attributes is inappropriate and Management may remove that individual without violating the labor agreement
.The Arbitrator did establish some criteria to prevent management from arbitrarily removing someone from a PER or some other type of negative action.
These are facts that must be determined on an individual, case-by--case basis. In some cases, failure to pass the exam on one administration may not reflect the type of basic lack that would justify immediate removal from the list. In other situations, a given test may have covered such a narrow portion of the job that, reasonably speaking, the person should be considered potentially available for other assignments within the same classification that would not involve those duties. If this be the case, fairness may dictate the conclusion that an employee does not lack minimal qualifications. As indicated above, however, the nature of these inquiries requires careful, indeed, meticulous, examination of the facts relevant to each individual job.
In general, then, it may not be said that the mere act of removing an individual from the Promotion Eligibility Register is to be regarded as a contract violation. Where failure of a particular examination for a particular classification justifies the conclusion that the person lacks even those minimal qualifications as would entitle him or her to standing on the Register, such actions should be found justified. But since the individual had previously been deemed potentially eligible for promotion, the burden is on Management to justify the premise that the failure or failures demonstrates otherwise.
Based on the results of the above referenced Step 4 Settlement and National Arbitrator Gamser’s award, it was agreed that employees could be sent to Maintenance job training and be expected to successfully pass the training in those limited situations where there is no equipment in a facility for the employee to perform maintenance.
I trust the above explanation clarifies this issue for application of the question and answer referenced above.
Filling Vacant
Maintenance Craft Positions
Article 38 Section 4.A.1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires the USPS to post a Notice of Intent for a period of seven days when a vacancy or newly-established position is to be filled. Section 4.A.2 requires that all vacant Maintenance Craft duty assignments be posted within 30 days of when the vacancy occurs.
When local management fails to post a vacant position within 30 days, it must post a notice explaining the operational justification for reverting the position. In addition, it must notify the local union president in writing of the reason for withholding the vacant position. Further, if local management intends to discontinue the process of filling vacancies, it must state so on the posted Notice of Intent that a particular duty assignment will be changed or reverted.
All offices are required to create a Preferred Assignment Register (PAR) as well as a Promotion Eligibility Register (PER). The PAR must list all duty assignments within the facility, while the PER must be established for each occupational group within the office.
Vacant preferred duty assignments are posted for bid on a Notice of Intent [PDF]. The vacant positions, along with any other duty assignments that may become vacant as a result of the posting, are filled from the Preferred Duty Assignment Register [PDF] and/or Promotion Register. During the posting of a vacant position, employees may change their Preferred Duty Assignment Selection Forms to include or exclude the position as a desired position prior to the ending of the Notice of Intent. Employees may also modify their Preferred Duty Assignment Selection Forms in accordance with Article 38 Section 5.A.6. Employees may also temporarily withdraw their consideration from a current Notice of Intent by using the Preferred Duty Assignment - Withdraw from Current Notice of Intent [PDF] form. Likewise, an employee may temporarily withdraw their consideration for promotion using the Promotion Rejection Form Maintenance Craft Promotion Eligibility Register Only form [PDF].
Maintenance craft duty assignments are filled in accordance with the Order for Filling Vacant Maintenance Positions in Article 38 of the Joint Contract Interpretation Manual. [PDF] (See page 5.)
Maintenance Skills Development Program
The Employee Developmental Opportunities - Implementation Agreement [PDF] outlines the procedures for training APWU bargaining unit career employees so that they can be placed in skilled positions in the Maintenance Craft and Motor Vehicle Craft. The purpose of the program is to enable APWU employees to qualify for placement on the appropriate selection register for Maintenance Mechanic Level 5 and Mail Processing Equipment (MPE) Mechanic Level 8 positions. The agreement, signed on March 24, 2004, by APWU Maintenance Craft Director Steve Raymer and USPS representatives, followed many discussions between the union's national Maintenance Craft officers and the Postal Service.
The foundation of the Implementation Agreement was the Employee Developmental Opportunities Memorandum of Understanding [PDF], signed in December 2002, as part of an extension of the 2000 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Postal Service published Implementation Instructions for the Maintenance Skills Development Program [PDF] in May 2004.
For a brief synopsis of the agreements, see Director Raymer's Article from May/June 2004 American Postal Worker.
There are two categories of positions in the Maintenance Craft - MSS positions and Non-MSS positions. Each category has a different application process; however the "pecking order" for filling positions in each category is the same. Some common MSS positions are Building Maintenance Custodian, Maintenance Mechanic, MPE Mechanic, Building Equipment Mechanic, and Electronic Technician. Some common Non-MSS positions are Cleaner, Custodian, Laborer-Custodial, Elevator Operator, and Maintenance Support Clerk.
USPS Handbook EL-304, Maintenance Selection System Handbook [PDF] , ensures the selection and promotion of qualified maintenance personnel and the uniform application of qualification requirements for MSS positions. The Maintenance Selection System is a three-part system (including a Written Test, Review Panel Evaluation, and Supervisor Evaluation) for Maintenance Craft employees to establish eligibility for designated maintenance occupational groups and levels.
Non-MSS positions have different methods of application and qualification. The procedures outlined in Postal Bulletin 21770, dated Aug. 23, 1990 [PDF], govern eligibility for Non-MSS positions. (Postal Bulletin 21770 revised Handbook EL-311, Personnel Operations, Subchapter 520.)
An agreement [PDF] between the APWU and USPS dated April 10, 2003, concerning custodial positions supports the union's position.
It should be noted that in order to be considered qualified for custodial positions, new applicants must have successfully complete Test 916. Maintenance Support Clerks, Levels 5 and 6, most pass the simplified typing test, Test 714, and Test 710 [PDF]. Test 714 requires the applicant to demonstrate the ability to type 30 correct lines within 10 minutes. Test 710 is a general aptitude test related to the type of work performed in Maintenance Control.
MSS positions are listed in the EL-304 Handbook and separated into four groups, according to the test requirements. The positions and tests are listed below:
GROUP A (Exam 931)
Area Maintenance Specialist
Area Maintenance Technician
Blacksmith-Welder
Building Equipment Mechanic
Building Maintenance Custodian
Carpenter
Letter Box Mechanic (Shop)
Machinist
Maintenance Electrician
Maintenance Mechanic, Level 4
Maintenance Mechanic, Level 5
Mason
Painter
Painter-Finisher
Plumber
GROUP B (Exam 932)
Electronic Technician, Level 11
GROUP C (Exam 932)
Electronics Technician, Level 12
GROUP D (Exam 933)
Maintenance Mechanic, MPE