Mailhandlers
Local 301
971 Worcester Rd.
Natick, MA 01760
(508) 651-2227
| Resources | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
Branch Offices
| Realignment of Duty Assignments in the Springfield P&DC Due To Implementation of Automated Induction |
|
|
|
|
Local 301 President Losi Provides Response to Branch # 36 Membership Inquiries Regarding Recent Staffing Issues In the Springfield P&DC Subject: Realignment of Mail Handler Duty Assignments due to Deployment of Automated Induction (AI) in the Springfield Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) I have received numerous inquiries from the rank and file membership asking for an explanation from the Local Office concerning the realignment of Mail Handler Duty Assignments that has resulted from the elimination of "08" pay locations and creation of numerous other duty assignments in the P&DC that has occurred in conjunction with the deployment of Automated Induction equipment for the FSM-100 Flat Sorters. Chief among those requests has been that the membership be provided with an explanation of the contractual provisions that apply in situations in which the Postal Service eliminates positions in a section and simultaneously creates an equal number, or, such as the case in the Springfield P&DC, a greater number of new duty assignments in the same section. On June 28, 2006, I received a copy of a proposed staffing package that involved the abolishment of all "08" pay location Duty Assignments in the P&DC as part of the realignment of positions in anticipation of implementation of Automated Induction to the FSM's in Springfield. This staffing package also called for the re-creation of new Duty Assignments in the"05" pay location with different days off that mirrored the abolished Duty Assignments. The Staffing package also called for the creation of "up to" thirty-eight (38) additional jobs, 2 on Tour II, 15 on Tour III, and the remaining 21 on Tour I in and around the Springfield P&DC. Along with the staffing package was a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that had been drafted for signature between Branch President Hawk and Acting Plant Manager Giza, which proposed to create a (closed) expedited bidding process that would have allowed, "Only those employees who had lost their bid position to bid for positions on their perspective tour".When I reviewed this package and the accompanying proposed MOU, I contacted Branch President Hawk and Labor Relations Manager Mark Forgue by conference call and told them both that they could not under any circumstances enter into such an agreement. I explained that the provisions of Article 12.6C4 clearly are invoked only in limited situations and that those provisions are invoked only in situations when the number of duty assignments in a section is being reduced. It is the reduction of the number of positions in a section and subsequent decision to reassign employees excess to the needs of a section that "triggers" the expedited bidding process. I further explained to them that I felt their belief in relying on the provisions of Article 12.5 in drafting the proposed MOU was completely misguided, as invoking Article 12.5 to support the closed bidding process was improper (see below) and closed bidding did not apply in any case. The staffing package that was being proposed by the Postal Service in this case clearly showed that the Postal Service was actually increasing the number of duty assignments in each section. I further explained that it was my view, and a view shared fully by my counterparts at both our Regional and National Office that the creation of any new duty assignment, that is any assignment with new Non-Service days that had not previously been posted for bid in the Springfield Installation should be posted for Installation-Wide Bidding, and should not under any circumstances be held to a closed bid. I could not in good conscience take away the rights outlined in Article 12.2 of over seven hundred full time regulars in the Springfield Installation to bid on newly created duty assignments which had never been posted without any contractual basis to support such a decision. I explained to both gentlemen at that time my reasons for this decision and immediately requested a joint Labor-Management Meeting, which was held on June 30, 2006. On June 30, 2006, a Labor Management Meeting was held in the Springfield Plant. Lead Plant Manager Dave Mastroianni, Plant Manager Mike Giza, District H/R Manager Shanahan, Area L/R Manager Felicia Adamski, L&DC Plant Manager Wayne Hoppick, L&DC MDO Rose Bennett, Springfield L/R Manager Fourge and several other Management representatives attended. Along with me, Local Treasurer Tim Dwyer, MA State Representative Neil Ryan, Branch # 36 President Dan Hawk, Springfield L&DC Branch # 1 President Bill Boulanger, Branch # 36 Steward Dave Orluk and Branch # 1 Steward Dave Sheehan attended for the Union. At the Labor Management Meeting, I outlined my reasons why we could not enter into an agreement for (closed) expedited bidding. Those reasons were quite simple and to the point and described exactly as they were described herein. There was no dissention from anyone in that meeting. No Union representative or manager had any argument about not entering into the previously proposed MOU. Such discussion was over. Everyone was clear that the National Agreement does not support (closed) expedited bidding when the number of Duty Assignments in a section is increasing. In closing, the provisions of Article 12.5 and 12.6 do not support the implementation of expedited bidding in Springfield in the situation we have today. The only time expedited bidding is applied is when the number of duty assignments in a section is being reduced by other than attrition. (See Article 12.6C4 Reassignment Within an Installation of Employees Excess to the Needs of a Section). I will not support making an agreement with the Postal Service that would result in revocation of the contractual rights of over seven hundred Brothers and Sisters to bid for newly created duty assignments which they have every right to bid. I do not have the right to make such an agreement and neither does anyone else! Two of your Branch Representatives were a part of this process and are fully cognizant of the issues at hand. If you have any questions regarding the process, please contact Branch President Hawk or Steward Orluk. As always, please feel free to contact this office if you have any further need of clarification on this matter or any other. Fraternally, In Solidarity, Robert P. Losi, President. |
