Arbitrator Denies Union’s Casuals Grievance

Bello said, “The Union’s argument that anything that is predictable is not viable under the contract is without significant precedent. (Such predictable usage would be using casuals to replace mail handlers on leave because leave usage is predictable and recurring.)

The Union believes that Bello has ignored the facts of the case and has drawn the wrong conclusion from the testimony given by Postal management and that Bello’s rationale is rife with contradictions:

Contradiction: Bello said Tamika Williams, acting HR specialist, gave a credible testimony (pg. 16). Yet Williams admitted that she did not know the mail volume for February and March of 2007 nor did she know with certainly that the leave usage was high. She said leave usage in 2007 was 31 percent and that’s high. But she doesn’t know what the leave percentage was for 2005 or 2006, so she has no basis for comparison (pg. 6).

Contradiction: Bello said that for the Union’s argument to prevail the Postal Service would be effectively precluded from using casual employees for virtually any reason (pg. 16). Yet Bello noted that the Union claims it recognizes that circumstances can exist where the codified triggers Management has created would justify the employment of supplemental workers intermittently or for a limited duration….(pg. 14) Bello contradicts herself further when she said in the very next sentence: “It would appear from the arguments made by the Union that they would consider no trigger a viable one. (pg. 14)”

Contradiction: The [mail-handler] craft was over complement as a result of taking 80 full time mail handlers from Philadelphia (pg. 6). Yet Bello cites that as a reason for hiring casuals (pg. 15). So, the union asks, if we have 80 more mail handlers as a result of excessing, why do we need to hire more casuals?

Contradiction: “Casuals are assigned to replace employees that are assigned to be 204b’s. They are used intermittently.” That conflicts with the fact that Williams said, “They average 800 hours per pay period. And there is always a need for details. (pg. 6)” Also, being able to calculate the average means that records exist that show the use of 204b’s is a regular recurring circumstance. And if there’s always a need for details then the circumstance is predictable.

The arbitrator said the Service made a bonafide “good-faith attempt to comply” with the guidelines set forth in the Das Award and in the Downes Memorandum. Yet the Union argues that making an attempt does not relieve them in complying with the National Agreement.

The Union believes that management continues to violate these provisions because they believe the reward far outweighs the risk. According to the Union’s calculations, Arbitrator Bello, in siding with Postal management, has taken $1,000 from every South Jersey mail handlers with her poorly reasoned decision.

The Union argued its case before Arbitrator Bello in October 2008. It submitted a written brief in mid-November and Bello had 30 days from that date to render a decision.

Local 308 President John Macey said he was disappointed with the arbitrator’s ruling and that he strongly disagrees with it. “But,” he said, “we’ve lost a battle but the war goes on. We have other casual-in-lieu-of cases in South Jersey on the docket and we will continue to fight every instance of management’s violation of the National Agreement.”

If you would like to read the arbitrator’s decision, you’ll find it on the union’s Web site at http://home.comcast.net/~tony9913/Bellmawr/Bello.pdf