Dispute Resolution Process

Following is a collection of quotes made by Branch Presidents and Scribes about their concerns with the Dispute Resolution Process.

Albuquerque, New Mexico
Out there, in what we call the �Wild Wild West,� national DRT intervention has been in effect for three months. It troubles me to report that things have only gotten worse. The upside, if there is one, is that grievance settlements have netted large amounts of cash for our letter carriers. But sadly, the violations continue with impunity. One issue that management has refused to acknowledge is that Albuquerque is grossly understaffed, and, to tell the truth, the mail is not getting delivered. Route failure after route failure has not motivated management to staff the units, and we have had to turn to our senator, Jeff Bingaman. This gross understaffing has resulted in some strong language from the DRT in which letter carriers who are worked beyond their 12/60 hour limits will receive an automatic 100 percent of their base pay, and that they are allowed to refuse any order or instruction that requires them to work beyond these limits without the risk of discipline. You can imagine how flagrant this problem must have been to receive such a corrective decision from the DRT Generally, we have been able to confront the stubbornness of local management with what I call �Managing via B-Team Decision.� If management refuses to do its job, then the union will do its job for them by using the grievance procedure to correct the failures. There have been whole-route or partial-route failures eight weeks running and 12/60 violations that have not stopped despite the DRT decision. While I have not lost all hope in the DRT intervention process, I do not believe that there will be much success unless we can address the underlying issues of gross understaffing and perpetual mismanagement. Until we get help, we will have to continue to �Manage via B-Team Decisions.�
John M Truflio, Branch 504 � March 2006

Emerald Coast, Florida
The Southeast area manager and the North Florida district manager have issued instructions to all EAS employees regarding union requests for information. Apparently, the NLRB is still receiving many complaints from postal unions regarding management ignoring requests for documents. The updated instructions provide managers and supervisors with specific tasks they must complete for each request received from union representatives. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of the Articles 31 and 17 grievances that appear regularly in the system. Effective February 1, the Step B Team for the North Florida and South Georgia districts was decertified. All South Georgia cases will now go to Atlanta and all North Florida cases will go to the Central Florida team. This decision was made by headquarters due to the decreasing volume of cases received. During the week of February 1, the North Florida district had no NALC cases pending arbitration. The purpose of the dispute resolution process is to eliminate grievances and to get the parties to resolve issues at the lowest possible level. Since I was the Step B representative for these two districts and the fact that I have 39 years of service, I have decided to join the ranks of the retirees. It has been a pleasure to serve in the position for the past four years, and although we didn�t always agree on the decisions, we still were able to work through the issues. Thank you all for your support. Congratulations to James McClintock and Phil Brumbaugh on their recent retirement Mac really celebrated his retirement when his Steelers won the Super Bowl. Special thanks to Leroy Kelley for his assistance while the branch president was out He did a lot of work in a short period of time.
Bob Henning, Branch 4559 � March 2006

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
W hat�s new in Branch 2, birthplace of the NALC? I know it�s been a while since we have had a scribe, so I volunteered my opinions. Things here are probably the same as everywhere SSDI (installation). We have been going through an informal Intervention Process for almost a year. This was based on the working relationships we have had with our counterparts, where grievances were logged rather than processed. Steward time was given during leap years. Grievance settlements are around $1 million per year. Some carriers make executive salaries. Supervisors have stolen time from carriers. Things were so bad that it took the district manager to get the postmaster to comply with a Step B decision. Contractual compliance here is as common as palm frees. There are station manager positions that no one will write for in our installation. We have to import them from as close as Arizona and Washington state. I�m curious to hear what others are experiencing in this process. We have these quarterly meetings in which management has that look on their faces, like they are forced to be in church. Results of this process appear to have been improving; however, working relationships seem to be drifting back to where they once were. Milwaukee is considered a great place on a great lake. In the postal world, however, it is considered a great place to make waves.
Scott Falkowski, Branch 2 � November 2005

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Cooperation. Frustration. Confusion. By definition, cooperation requires two parties working together towards a common goal. The NALC has partnered with the Postal Service in developing the dispute resolution process, which was a big step towards showing Congress that we could work together and eliminate a backlog of grievances. We�ve led the fight for postal reform, even allowing our chief lobbyist to assist the Service in their lobbying efforts. And then there was the promise of a cooperative effort to finally fix the route adjustment process. When your partner in these ventures decides to change their stance and undo all of the cooperation, it leads to frustration. The Postal Service summarily voided the joint route adjustment program, reverting to the old system based on confrontation and intimidation. They tried to pull an 11th hour coup to undermine the postal reform legislation still pending a Senate vote. And, as for DRP, management�s tactics of severe discipline for even minor of offenses, ignoring progressive discipline and (in some cases) refusal to settle grievances at the lowest possible level, could only be described as adversarial. Now, as we approach contract negotiation in the upcoming year, there is confusion. Are we the partner who brings in millions in revenue through the Customer Connect program or does management consider us the enemy? Our once-bright picture of the possibilities of pay grade increases and continued benefits are being darkened by threats of eliminating COLAs and negotiating benefits. For now, all we can do is support the efforts of our local branches to ensure a fair route adjustment process, combat abusive management, and enforce the contract We all need to stay informed and back our national leadership in the upcoming contract negotiations.
Gary Bluestone, Branch 84 � November 2005

Albuquerque, New Mexico
I write with restrained optimism that change could be on its way to Albuquerque. It is official that National DRP Intervention is coming to the Albuquerque District. The problems that we have had are almost all generational in duration. Being out here in the provinces, or what I like to call the Wild, Wild West, management has run our service into the ground; it has been nothing short of gross malfeasance. We have had a string of District Managers who either have done nothing or have reigned as sovereign monarchs intent on terrorizing letter carriers. Albuquerque, which has only 600 letter carriers, has generated more grievances than Houston, Texas and its thousands of letter carriers. As expected those responsible either have moved on or are clinging to the last vestige of power available. The saddest part of this saga is that while there remain some or few credible managers, the worst of Texas are being sent as replacements to carry on this chaos. I think it might be time for a union-run shop.
John M. Trujillo, Branch 504 � September 2005

Cocoa, Florida
With the recent announcement of the implosion of the AFL-CIO, now might be the time to assess the direction the NAIL has taken and the leadership that has pushed this agenda. Although this might be heresy as far as the leadership is concerned, it is my belief that the direction the current NALC leadership has taken is wrong. I�m sure that in some parts of the country (and especially for the larger offices), the abandonment of the grievance/arbitration process in favor of the joint process has made some sense. In the Central Florida District, the union�s Step B representative is in the pocket of management, and the decisions made have reflected this. I believe this process is fundamentally flawed in that there is no appeal of obviously harmful and wholly wrong decisions made by incompetent Step B members. NALC�s leadership doesn�t care to even respond to criticism of its Step B appointees. One can only assume that the true problem lies with the NALC�s national leaders. It has gotten to the point that I am hesitant to urge NALC membership to new carriers if the union to which I am attempting to garner new membership remains unresponsive to their needs and cannot or will not enforce its own contract.
D.L. DeSchinckel, Branch 3761 � September 2005

Wichita, Kansas
I hope that by the time this is printed, postal reform will be a reality I doubt it, but I did say I hoped so. If we get what we need out of this legislation, it will keep a rate increase from happening. Job security is still number one for me, and this will help ensure that. Management�s number one is making whatever number that keeps their superior off their ass, better. Article 15.2 of the JCAM states that the supervisor, in any discussion, will have the authority to settle any grievance. I wish this was true. Too many times to count I know of cases where the supervisor or the station manager would not settle because someone in Labor told them not to do it. Our stewards have put comments made by supervisors m their grievance statements stating that the supervisor could not settle It never seems to matter. It is never referred to in a settlement It should be grounds to throw out the discipline. Labor is supposed to be a resource not the generator of the discipline I see too many pieces of discipline loaded with boiler plate language such as 66153 of the ELM sometimes intimating that the carrier may be a criminal when all you are being accused of is late delivery of an Express Mail. If the Step B teams rigidly enforced this part of the JCAM especially when there is no refutation maybe discipline would be settled at a lower level. Maybe Labor would trust the supervisors to do their jobs? That would help reduce costs improve attitudes and reduce grievances. Nah! Even your supervisors aren�t trusted any more than you are to do our job.
Patrick Hill, Branch 201 � August 2005

Milford, Massachusetts
Continuing from last month, we will now look at the �goals� of the Dispute Resolution program. One scribe commented that the results coming from the B team run about 50-50. That should come as no surprise. This is roughly the same win-loss percentage as comes out of arbitration. Perhaps of greater concern is a figure contained in the description of the intervention process: �Step B resolution rate below 80 percent� This can easily be read as being a �goal� to resolve 80 percent of the grievances that come in. Does it imply that B teams that are not resolving 80 percent are not doing an acceptable job? Let�s hope not. The problem can arise when the issue is �resolved� to the satisfaction of the B team but not of the parties who sent it in originally. Which leads to another goal of DRP, a reduction in the number of overall grievances. Say what? Does anyone expect grievances to be reduced in the face of an onslaught of speed-up pressure coming from the top? Like the old saying goes, when an irresistible force (DOIS) meets an immovable object (professional carrier), something�s gotta give. That would be the safety valve known as the grievance procedure. Most of the union�s people on the B teams are experienced stewards or branch officials. They are skilled at reading between the lines and identifying the �lightning rod� situations that draw management�s attention but actually have an effect far beyond the few carriers involved. This gets down to the basics of what unionism is about. The �safety valve� should not be closed off. Saving money is another goal of DRP. But this can mean awarding more monetary remedies rather than less. Resolving grievances on technicalities does little to prevent repeat violations, which is where the real cost lies.
Jim Zozzaro, Branch 308 � May 2005

Milford, Massachusetts
edited - Our NBA also addressed a hot-button issue, the so-called �Dispute Resolution Process.� It seems that many carriers are losing faith in the process. This becomes apparent from talking to carriers and reading the articles in these pages. Whether these carriers are right or wrong, this perception can become a morale problem. This raises the question: What to do about it? Remember that the DRP is included in the contract that was voted upon by the members. I personally voted against the contract, but I�m willing to accept the results. Simply giving up and ceasing to send in grievances would be a defeatist attitude. What if the aforementioned strikers of 1970 had taken such an attitude? Or if our beloved Red Sox had given up when their backs were to the wall last year? Better to take what we have and improve it. Take to heart the words of Jim Williams on page 26 last month: �Sometimes the complaint has merit�when it does we correct it� Also the Intervention Process can be utilized. Finally, we need to take a hard look at the �goals� (some would say �quota system�) of the DRP. More about that next month.
Jim Zozzaro, Branch 308 � April 2005

Naples, Florida
edited - Where is the consistency? Most of us who have filed grievances have had contact with B teams. The Dispute Resolution Process, while it has solved many issues in a timely manner, has also caused many questions to arise. I support the Dispute Resolution Process and the teams working at Step B. I wonder if the process can improve. It seems that Step B decisions vary in our state on similar issues. It also seems that state to state, issues that are similar are ruled differently. We need more consistency on decisions from teams. Consistency will help at every level in solving grievances.
Al Micieli Jr., Branch 4716 � April 2005

Fargo-West Fargo, North Dakota
edited - Here�s some sour meat: We lost all three city vs. rural grievances. Have we rolled over? We even delivered to some of these locations first and still nothing. Unbelievable. We haven�t done too well on our DRT decisions either. Lots of problems in West Fargo. We used to have a grievance in that station once or twice a year�now we have two or three a week. The carriers are the same; what has changed? Does anyone above care or notice?
Rick Olek, Branch 205 � March 2005

Port Huron, Michigan
I attended a branch president�s meeting a couple of years ago, in which several B-team members were present A report was given evaluating the effectiveness of B-team decisions, and concluded with the percentages of decisions favoring each side. I remember feeling comfortable with the fact that my own team was running at about a 50/50 decision-rate between management and union. I also remember thinking that it certainly would not have been politically expedient for our team member to have allowed a 40/60 advantage favoring management I�m sure that even he would have been concerned about his longevity in that position if such a decision rate persisted too long. The same could probably be said on managements side too, because I�m sure they are looking at the same data. Which brings me to the question: Is there a give/take relationship between B-team members concerning decisions? Would the fact that I just won my last five grievances cast any bias toward the outcome of my next one? I�ve come to the conclusion that it might. It has been our recent branch policy that if the Formal-A representative doesn�t think they have an equal or greater chance of winning at the B-team, he or she will be more willing to settle at Formal-A. But if our winning record at Step-B is a hindrance to future successes, then we will have to change our strategy to submit what would otherwise be considered unwinnable grievances, if only to offset our percentages and thus give us a better chance at winning the ones we really expect to win. Am I dumping on the B-team? No. It just seems to me that this is one of the realities of the system. On another note, congratulations to retiring members Tom Buckingham and Helen Kelly.
David Kitchin, Branch 529 � March 2005

South Jersey
Have we been played for a fool?� Ever since we received word the Postal Service was withdrawing from the �joint� route inspection method, all I could say was good! It comes as no surprise to this scribe that this occurred; I was just amazed it took this long. Did we really think management would let us evaluate and adjust routes based on true data? Let�s get real! I guess we were too worried about the past elections than to concentrate on the problems at hand. When are we going to learn that these people do not want to work together for the good of the service, but are only worried about how to get their next pay raises? I think it is time to stop the talking and start fighting back against management It seems the more we talk, the more they take advantage of us. It seems like every time we initiate a joint endeavor they use us for their own good. The DRT process has saved them millions of dollars, but what did we get out of it? Not big fat pay raises like the ones they received. I could go on and on but we need to take a long look at where we are heading with management and re-evaluate our joint ventures with them. As I write, local management is being trained to make route adjustments based on DOTS and who knows what else. One thought to consider�what will happen when management violates the contract on adjusting routes? Do we really expect the DRT reps from management to uphold a violation when there will be intense pressure on them not to settle? Stay tuned.
Gary DiGiacomo, Branch 908 � March 2005

Emerald Coast, Florida
Grievance activity is on the rise in the panhandle of Florida. The branches in this area attribute it to all the OICs and the detailed supervisors being utilized. More and more we see management conflicts with each other, supervisors transferring or going back to the craft. There will be a mass exodus of postmasters and supervisors retiring December 31 in this district and very few qualified persons to fill the positions. Formal Step A management representatives are taking lackadaisical attitudes towards grievances, even after the Step B team resolves the issue. One supervisor told a Branch 4559 steward he didn�t care about the union or grievances because they are only for people who mess up. One OIC told the branch president that he didn�t need to show him the JCAM, and the union was not going to tell him how the office should run. Needless to say the branch president included those comments in the grievance. This makes it real easy for the Step B team to make a decision when the union made management aware it was about to violate the agreement and management goes ahead with the violation anyway. Branch elections have concluded in most offices with new stewards and officers taking office and many others re-elected. Congratulations and thank you for taking on this enormous responsibility. To those of you who served, you deserve special thanks for all your efforts, too. As members of the NALC we all should give these officers our support Remember these officers do not get paid appropriately for the work and hours they put in. They do it because they are dedicated to the carriers they represent. Condolences go to Charlotte Alexander and Kim Virgil on their recent family losses.
Bob Henning, Branch 4559 � January 2005

LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Remember the movie �Bridge Over the River Kwai�? British prisoners of war, held in a Japanese prison camp, are detailed to build a bridge spanning the Kwai river, which will be very helpful to the Japanese (the enemy�s) war effort The prisoners rally around this task, which gives them a purpose at first..that is, until it becomes apparent that successfully completing the bridge will seriously harm their own side in the ongoing war! Moreover, some of the prisoners, in particular one officer, have become so obsessed with finishing and saving the bridge, that they have lost sight of the reason they are in the camp�the war itself! It appears that some within our own union have become like this one officer�so intent are they on �communicating� and �getting along� with USPS management (the �bridge�) that they are not questioning those very policies that are destroying our working lives and, by extension, the USPS itself. The Dispute Resolution Teams often fall into this trap. They try to �get along � with upper management, caving in on working conditions (saving the �bridge�), until the Service we provide is decimated and the carrier�s job is downright horrible. But the great �bridge� is still there! I have a solution: every upper level manager and union leader should be required to work as a carrier, following the same, largely negative rules they have �agreed and cooperated� on, at least one day per month. This would be a much needed �dose of reality��many programs that look so good on paper would be revealed for the fiascos they really are�and, these same �higher-ups� would see firsthand just how inefficient and damn unpleasant they have made what was once a good job and an excellent service to the American people.
Jay Bowers, Branch 59 � January 2005

Plainfield, New Jersey
As usual the letter carriers and union officials of Puerto Rico were gracious hosts for the Committee of Presidents meeting and a regional conference. A hot topic brought up by our national president was the ability of Step B teams to terminate letter carriers. This issue takes on added importance since the union was not successful in making a manager�s termination stick, thanks to the Postal Service�s actions on the manager�s behalf. President Young advised if we considered a Step B termination unjust (theft and chronic AWOL are not the issue here), notify him and if in agreement he will get the decision overturned. In the former process a termination was given its due at Step 3 by a union-paid official, and if not resolved, the business agent�s office could decide to arbitrate or not. A short statement if not; an acceptable process that had group input into the decision that was not a rush to judgment. President Young now offers an alternative; hopefully we will not nave to utilize it. Thanks are extended to former New Jersey letter carrier Olga Taborda, transferred to Guayama, and her family, husband Jesus and daughter Yasmin, for their hospitality and enlightenment to the beauty of life in Puerto Rico. Though we are stuck with four more years of the administration, there is an election to look forward to each year, so we must be constantly vigilant, give to COLCPE and be e-Activists. Our future depends on it.
Michael Breslin, Branch 396 - December 2004

Garden State Merged, New Jersey
The Postal Service is changing, and changing fast. Unfortunately, the NALC is not keeping up. Everything is becoming computerized, mechanized and automated. The Postal Service is training its management at a faster pace than ever before. Most of our union reps are lost at deciphering through volumes of computer printouts that they don't understand. Much of the paperwork for grievance investigation has changed and numerous stewards can't identify the information they need to support their case. Grievances are down and it's being attributed to the Dispute Resolution Process. Don't get me wrong-that system is better than what we had and it has reduced grievances-but not to the extent we're told. To a large extent, the reduction of grievances is because grievances are not being filed. The NALC has no programs for the education of stewards to find the information they need in management's "new" records, which live within the computer. Things are just not the way they were. National business agents must provide advanced steward training, not simply a few hours of basic training for new stewards. Let's leave the Food Drive and MDA to the state presidents. NBAs should provide steward training three times a year in every postal district of their territory. NBAs, not RMs, should run the session. Training must include everything, from how to investigate a grievance and how to write a grievance, to providing proper documentation to the Dispute Resolution Team and how to testify before an arbitrator. Yes, my branch and other branches hold their own training, but this must also be done on a larger basis. NBAs are paid tens of thousands of dollars more than stewards. Let them start working at night, like many stewards do, and train NALC representatives!
Charlie Heluk, Branch 444 - November 2004

South Jersey, New Jersey
No apology needed, but an acknowledgment would have been nice! As you know I have been quite outspoken when it comes to the handling of removals at the DRT level. I guess no one will listen until you prove yourself with some positive results. Well, we have finally proven ourselves at arbitration with the reinstatement of a carrier who was removed. I am sure some of you are saying big deal, but please let me explain. When we first started grieving this removal I was told that this case was going to be hard to impasse. I said that we need to get this case to arbitration because there were a lot of mitigating circumstances that we could bring up if we just get to the hearing. Then I was told that if we didn't grieve the proposed letter of removal we automatically lost. I said that this couldn't be the case because there were many arbitration rulings that supported our argument. Again, I was slapped back with "I am telling you, we lose!" Well, thank God I don't take everyone's opinion as the gospel. I proceeded to prepare this case the way I always do when it comes to representing our members, with no holds barred. Through countless hours of preparation and a great job of our advocate Bill Revak, we were able to get our grievant his day in court to tell his story. The result was a positive one, with the brother being given another chance. The moral of this story is what I have and will continue to preach: We must come up with a better way to handle removals for our members at the DRT level.
Gary DiGiacomo, Branch 908 - November 2004

Plainfield, New Jersey
Last month's Branch Items touched on the issue of the Dispute Resolution Process giving the power to terminate a union member to the Step B team union member. 'This is a weakness of the process only if the Step B team union member utilizes it Unfortunately they do, and will have to live with their decision. A few years ago, a steward of this branch, also the food drive coordinator, was terminated by the team, and it wasn't for theft or the Joint Statement, so obviously our branch supported the resolution from Flushing, New York. The Contract Administration Unit didn't, so since most branches don't vote to overturn the national union, we are stuck with this weakness in the process, which benefits management. The bottom line is someone other then a union member on managements payroll should make a final decision on a termination. While on the topic of the convention, the delegates voted to discriminate against same-sex relationships, by not trying to get the Postal Service to add it to Article 2. It is not realized that discrimination does not stand still, rather human nature can find new issues to utilize, and when they do, the union should respond with protection to dues-paying members. If we didn't, there would be no reason for Article 2, and that should be realized by the delegates who are covered by Article 2 who got to the microphone to deny others the protection they enjoy. They should realize a stroke of a Republican president's pen can deny them Article 2 protection; witness affirmative action. The more people under Article 2, the better; our future depends on it.
Michael Breslin, Branch 396 - October 2004

South Jersey, New Jersey
Arbitration for All Removals!" Branch 294 from New York proposed this resolution at the National Convention in Hawaii and it was defeated overwhelmingly by the delegates. This lack of support for an issue of this magnitude scares the devil out of me. I know on the surface you say that we can not just unilaterally send all removals to arbitration, since this would be defeating the intent of the Dispute Resolution Process. But if you look at why this is not such a far-fetched idea, maybe we should take a long look at this premise. The day someone can explain to me why we have to have one of own "union" brothers be the judge and jury when removing another brother I would be willing to listen. I am sick and tired of hearing our supposedly union leaders tell me that they agree with the decision of our DRT representative when they uphold a removal. When someone can show me the last time a postmaster, supervisor, POOM, or district manager was ever "fired," then please come talk to me and I will start to agree that we can work together to try to fix some of the internal problems. We have a laundry list of "scumbag" managers continuing to graze the plains who, if they were carriers, would have been removed a long time ago. So why should we be "sleeping with the enemy" when dealing with removals. It really upsets me that this union doesn't think the due process rights of its members aren't the most important rights we have. Not allowing an accused member his day in court in front of his accusers is just not right. I hope everyone will re-think this idea before following the herd to the slaughterhouse.
Gary DiGiacomo, Branch 908- August-September 2004

Bux-Mont, Pennsylvania
This month�s submission comes from branch Secretary James Morrison: In March's 2004 issue of The Postal Record, President Young claimed, 'The current labor relations system is robust and effective." My question: At what price? It has become clear that DRTs are under pressure not to impasse anything. Obviously, the intent is to be able to go before Congress and say, 'We have great labor relations between the USPS and NALC. Our high resolution rate proves it." If our grievances are being resolved to our detriment or without regard to the contract, what good is it? Cooperation has to be a mutual thing; we're not seeing that. We're seeing a withdrawal from the field by one side, leaving the other to do as it pleases. Management has caught on and is now in the driver's seat. When meeting at Step A, we are put in the position of accepting an inferior settlement or sending the grievance to the DRT, something we have become afraid to do. A carrier sitting still in his LLV at a mailbox was hit by another vehicle. Despite witness statements supporting the carrier, he was given a three-month LOW by the DRT. Their reasoning: "So that the carrier would become more aware of his surroundings." What�s with the cancellation of route/special inspections? A steward and supervisor measuring mail? For years National preached the standard was 18 and 8, not foot-per-hour. Is this the beginning of evaluated routes? Why was this done secretly? Brother Young, you work for the members of this union! Labor and management are supposed to maintain an "arm's length" relationship with one another, according to labor laws. We find ourselves locked in a bear hug. Ifs hard to breathe when you're getting your ribs crushed.
Kevin A. Gardner, Branch 920 - May 2004

Yakima, Washington
edited - Our shop stewards are overworked. Perhaps it's time our national officers negotiate for more stewards, because in Yakima the new Dispute Resolution isn't slowing down grievances and we've been on it from the get-go.
J.S. Bohlinger, Branch 852 - October 2003

Staten Island, New York
edited - At the NY State Convention, much of the conversation and give and take surrounded the issue of carrier removals by the B team. There were supposed to be over 100 letter carriers removed by B teams across the country. President Young made a valid point when he stated that sometimes carriers should in fact be removed for major offenses and that many of these decisions are passed on by the branch advocates because they don't want to be the one to get the member fired. Therefore, the problem gets put in the hands of the B team and the pressure falls on the NALC member of that team to render an unpopular decision. However, as was brought up by a branch president, how many management personnel have been removed by the B team? I am not talking about being recycled and sent to another station or district, but straight out ... fired! The answer I believe was that there were a couple of instances and I believe that in each case, the USPS took the removals to the Court of Appeals. I don't like the percentage of them to us as it relates to being removed from the job. I also feel that the Dispute Resolution Process must be tweaked. Before a carrier (or manager) would be removed, they should have the opportunity to face their accuser and answer to the charges. With the exception of informal A, it is not likely that the grievant does anything more than sit at home and wait for the system to give him a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
Paul T. Alexander, Branch 99 - October 2003

Jackson, Michigan
edited - I believe a contract resolution should be made at the National Convention calling for participation in the DRT process to be voluntary, just as E.I. (Employee Impalement) was. ... CUT AND ROLL!
Bob Czartoryski, Branch 232 - September 2003

Flushing, New York
edited - a carrier can scan 40 pieces a day plus the 7-8 tree scans, six days a week for six straight months, miss six scans by accident, error, forgetfulness, mistake or heat exhaustion, average 99.9% scan-worthy, top of the line numbers and sadly, be removed by the progressive discipline tenents and black and white ideals of the DRT team - 99.9% of the scans made and he could conceivably be out the door because the book is the book and an irrelevant tree or toilet scan is still a scan. Think of that brothers and sisters.
Mark Sobel, Branch 294 - August 2003

Naugatuck, Connecticut
edited - Our union steward has a battle with management to obtain union time to write up the dozens of grievances caused by mismanagement every week. The DRT process has not slowed down management's petty confrontational policies and it reduces the time frame to send the grievance out of the office for resolution.
Ed Mulrenan III, Branch 746 - August 2003

Camden, New Jersey
edited - Well, summer is almost here, prime time vacations are upon us, and we still have a problem getting the issue of residual weeks resolved. When I had the training for DRT, I don't remember having the option of appealing a ruling by the DRT team if we didn't like it. But that is what our postmaster is currently doing. The DRT team ruled that we will get the residual weeks that are in our local agreement, until the arbitration is ruled upon. (The arbitration was set for June 20.) But our postmaster is not abiding by the DRT ruling. He is arbitrarily denying all residual leave slips. I guess "rules" don't matter anymore. I guess "settlements" don't matter anymore. It certainly seems like it's great to be king!
Matt Carroll, Branch 540 - July 2003

Flushing, New York
edited - As I read the decisions from Step B, I am constantly amazed at what we've given up in the face of defending our rights. I shall only speak in generalities and conclude that the give and take and the logic, common sense and good faith rationale have been replaced by a book of interpretations of our National Agreement that has become gospel. Our Step B team has the best resolution rate on the planet and that's suppose to be good I guess. As I read the decisions, I shudder at the "new logic" our members are supposed to adopt as their own. A carrier, for instance, using two sick days and committing two latenesses of 4 units combined in three months received a 2-year Letter of Warning and it stuck. In the pre-DRT days, that would have been a laugh over lunch and a toss in the garbage.
Mark Sobel, Branch 294 - July 2003

Framingham, Massachusetts
edited - Well, in our district, we have a management B team representative who forgets that he already settled the same contract violations and now sends them to impasse (look at the case, not which office sent you the case). It's either his decision, or he is told by up-above to send all grievances to impasse. Not only does this management B rep not have any supporting documentation from the national contract to support his decision on why he is sending this grievance to impasse. He now has to use articles that we have written in our Postal Record Branch Items to put into his contentions (try reading the JCAM, not the Postal Record).
Dennis Ross, Branch 334 - July 2003
Webmasters note concerning this issue: The National Labor Relations Board has ruled it to be an Unfair Labor Practice for the Employer to spy on the Union (or to even act like their spying on the Union). So why is a management official using an article from the Union's publication? How did the management representative get the article?

Plainfield, New Jersey
Article 15 is about grievance handling. It has been re-written incorporating a new process and, as in the past, will be utilized primarily by stewards and union officials. The procedure is part of a grander plan for better contractual compliance. Though this plan is not complete, problem spots are evident and only experienced by the stewards and union officials who have to work the process; however, not only do they suffer, so do the letter carriers who are disciplined and/or have their contractual rights violated. For example a recent case had a letter carrier request a stewards. What do we tell people with concerns? "Request a steward!" Management did not deny the request, they just repeatedly put the letter carrier off, even though the steward was in that capacity and readily available to meet, and then it was too late. The letter carrier sought out the steward after work, and they met for 15 minutes. The union grieved and the Step B union/management team, both on the post office payroll came back with a erroneous decision that claimed the steward wanted to interview a witness and the schedules conflicted, so management didn't do it deliberately. The decision claimed, since it was only 15 minutes, there would be no compensation, and they went on to list decisions about management and steward time, never mentioning the past Step A settlements the union had. Though the team thought the amount was minimal, the membership didn't and voted to compensate the letter carrier and the steward. This kind of decision only serves management and leads to more grievances that this process was suppose to stop. Ask how's the grievance process going, your future depends on it.
Michael Breslin, Branch 396 - July 2003

Naugatuck, Connecticut
edited - We had an interesting convention for the State Association at the Mystic, Ct Hilton. ... Sunday morning featured a fiery talk by Paul Daniels of the Merged Branch about management's coercion tactics/grievances in Waterbury, Meriden and their attempts to fire the union steward in Groton on trumped up charges. Monday featured a similar talk by Mike Willadsen of the Hartford area union problems they have with DRT/grievances and abusive bosses.
Ed Mulrenan III, Branch 746 - June 2003

Plainfield, New Jersey
edited - Stereotypical behavior is displayed when a male union official is aggressively defending the membership against management and it's called macho; however, when a female does it the label is hysterical and belligerent. In the case of the woman union president it led to a 14 day suspension for two charges. DRT threw out the first, but helping management in their over-year-long attack, ruled the second happened on the workroom floor, believing the word of lying management, and upheld the whole discipline. Whatever happened to reduction or elimination because management did not prove all charges, or how about impasse to protect the union official?
Michael Breslin, Branch 396 - June 2003

Santa Clara, California
edited - The decision is back! The DRP Team sustained the grievance dealing with managers deleting time from Letter Carriers. The supervisors were not being removed (big surprise), but there was a monetary remedy and additional training ordered to all the managers. And then guess what happened? Management in the very same city had the audacity to continue to steal time from the letter carriers. Now these subsequent grievances are at Step B and awaiting the next step to be taken against the "Bonnie and Clydes" from the Santa Clara Post Office.
Brian Voigt, Branch 1427 - June 2003

Elizabeth, New Jersey
edited - There are no women in our National Business Agent's office and have never been (with the exception of a secretary, and a monthly shop steward trainer). There have been no women trained for the Step B Team, none sent to Meany, few active arbitration advocates.
Stacy Drootin, Branch 67 - May 2003

Rockville, Maryland
edited - Article 8, simple enough? Not for these clowns. It seems that working carriers 60 hours a week isn't enough. The bar needs to be raised an hour or two or three. They want our president and shop steward to cut them some slack. You know, the same way they cut an employee some slack for being 9 units late for work as part of an attendance removal. We even had to send 12- and 60-hour violations of Article 8 to Step B. Why? Because local management refused to honor and acknowledge the mandated compensation spelled out in the JCAM. So much for the integrity of the seriously flawed Dispute Resolution Process.
Dominick Lignelli, Branch 3825 - May 2003

Springfield, Virginia
edited - Recently our OIC has been told by the DRT to start meeting with our Formal A reps to settle grievances. Well, he did so for about two weeks, then he shifted back to his normal ways. We can only hope that the DRT takes this into account when rendering a decision. Because we know he can't make one.
Jerry Seybold, Branch 4798 - May 2003

Yakima, Washington
Seattle District was one of the first areas to use the DRT grievance procedure. I remember going to the training with other stewards, postmasters and OIC's. The session opened with the statement that the system was overburdened and something needed to be done to clean up the backlog. Out of about 200 people I made the first comment. We don't need another system; if management would obey the contract and follow the E.L.M., grievances would go down. Suffice it to say that if looks could kill I wouldn't be writing this article. As a shop steward I've been fortunate to negotiate the majority of my grievances at the local level using both systems. I haven't written one in quite awhile. Not because the DRT process is so great but that I demoted myself to alternate. Region 2, the Pacific Northwest, has excellent advocates in all aspects of the business agents office. However, there are a bunch of us in Yakima that have LOW's in our files for missed MSP while our complaints are sitting at the Step B level. If we really want to improve the grievance procedure then we should create language that states no discipline will be put into anyone's personnel file until a settlement has been reached. Until next month, give to COLCPE and get involved. Peace.
J.S. Bohlinger, Branch 852 - May 2003

Jackson, Michigan
edited - Still waiting to see what happens when our business agent "revisits" the grievances we filed. I am willing to scan and e-mail to anyone interested a copy of the decisions so you can read for yourself the caliber of representation we have here in the Detroit District. What happens when the union rep on the DRT team doesn't know the contract and is proven to be a poor choice? Can we question them on why they decided in favor of management despite the overwhelming evidence in our favor? Are they accountable to anyone or do they have the position for life? It appears only smaller branches are getting the short end of the stick. Received a newsletter from Branch 758 here in Michigan, a smaller branch. One article pertains to a screw job by our DRT team. Rockville, MD publishes DRT decisions, another smaller branch, more outrageous anti-union decisions ... is there a pattern? Is anyone at National monitoring these decisions? Maybe a contest among the smaller branches as to which is The Worst. Tough to pick just one huh? ... CUT AND ROLL!
Bob Czartoryski, Branch 232 - March 2003

Knoxville, Tennessee
I am writing this article out of frustration more than anger, although I must confess to being a little more than just disappointed in our union. I was given a letter of warning for looking on the supervisor's desk. I was taken into the office and told I could not look on her desk. We are told to go to the desk and get our 3996 when we need one. When I came out of the office I looked where I thought I saw my 3996. And that's what she gave me a LOW for. Now during the investigative interview I ask for my Weingarden Rights both before I went into the office and while I was in the office and both times the supervisor said no. I would think that our union would look at this as an obvious attempt to deprive a member of his right to representation. And that that would be enough to get our side of the team to at least send it on, but it didn't. He ruled the supervisor was right and the new Regional B.A. upheld this stupidity. The JCAM means nothing to them and neither do we. No one person should have this kind of power, nor should they be allowed to abuse this power. Vote and vote for a change in our union before we end up with the same problem the Rural Carriers have.
Andrew Jones, Branch 419 - March 2003

Staten Island, New York
Recently, I was provided with a report on "Dispute Resolution Team Decisions" for all Districts. My attention was focused on the page that showed Discipline FY 2001 and Discipline 2002. What immediately catches ones eye is the overall increase in discipline across the board. Letters of Warning have jumped 42 percent. 7-Day Suspensions are up 20 percent. 14-Day Suspensions rose by 13 percent. Emergency Suspensions are up 7 percent. Most impressive of all, Removals are up 17 percent and just so the stats don't cloud the issue, that stands for 1,183 letter carriers. The issue of the B team removing letter carriers from the job has been debated many times. Usually, the first question which arises is how many supervisors or managers have the B team removed. When the number comes back zero, then the issue really begins to heat up. One of the most obvious shortcomings of the new system, is the fact that the grievant never gets his day in court unless the case is sent to arbitration and there seems to be a big push not to spend money. On another front, President Young has said that a joint intervention task force will identify and intervene in troubled spots around the country. This is a good idea which must be put into action immediately before anyone else is mistreated in our workplace.
Paul T. Alexander, Branch 99 - March 2003

Independence, Kansas
edited - With the new year barely a week old, management is beginning where they left off, with notices of LOW's and suspensions for accidents, calling in sick and seems to me for just being a carrier. I don't care what program our union leaders and management agree to, this will continue as long as stupidvisors aren't held accountable. In this district, managers are being told by their bosses not to settle grievances. How can that be? Why is it allowed to happen? Resolving grievances at the lowest possible level crap is just that. I'm sick of the DRP process.
Terry P. Miller, Branch 1035 - February 2003

Jackson, Michigan
edited - Our DRT union rep amended the National Agreement on a recent grievance. Our business agent is "revisiting" the issue. Are these union reps selected based on knowledge and experience? Or political considerations? ... CUT AND ROLL!
Bob Czartoryski, Branch 232 - February 2003

Rochester, Minnesota
edited - On January 3, our station steward, Tim Weiberg called our district DRT team. He had been denied the right to interview several witnesses regarding the grievance he had filed after he was disciplined for bringing mail back after dark. A Management member of the team immediately began berating Mr. Weiberg because, she said management has the right to demand that we deliver in the dark. In other words, she was passing her judgment on the grievance even before it was filed. If this is indicative of our DRT team's attitude and capacity for understanding their jobs, we're in big trouble. But thats not all. According to an AP news release dated Jan.1, 2003, Kansas City postal officials do not want carriers on the street after dark. Those with heavier routes will be allowed to start earlier. Carriers will be issued reflective vests if they choose to deliver in the dark; if they feel the darkness to be dangerous, they can return to their respective stations and fill out hazard reports. Guess what. In Rochester, Minnesota, none of that applies. We might assume that if we sustain a fatality we might be treated a bit more humanely, but in the meantime, darkness must not be as dark here as it is in Kansas and Missouri.
Lowell Fredin, Branch 440 - February 2003

Wichita, Kansas
After 18 months of the new grievance procedure (DRP), I think it needs to be scrapped. Article 15 is a mess, and our leaders in Washington think they've re-invented the wheel. Well, the spokes on this buggy have broken. I am aware that much of the rest of the country may have been under the old procedures under Article 15, while we in Wichita were under a system called UMPS. Other cities, too, were under that system. It had several advantages over DRP. DRP as it currently exists has several disadvantages from UMPS. The grievant has no input beyond the initial stage. The DRP team doesn't interact with the participants other than a case file. Discipline is not withheld until resolution. As it is now, management has no stake in seeing the grievance procedure through. Hell, management can't make any decision on their own. I've had station managers tell me that the postmaster won't let them make a certain decision. The DRP team doesn't consider that a violation in itself. There is no incentive to settle because we have to do all the work. Another rash on my butt is that the union representative on the DRP team is answerable to no one except our leaders in Washington, who seem to pawn off all concerns to our business agents, who have no control over anything to do with DRP. Our DRP representative should be elected by the membership, or at least the leadership of our union. I don't like waisting my time putting together a good case, just to have it shot down because they're too busy to read it all. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that some of our people in DC seem to believe in top-down management, just like the Postal Service.
Patrick Hill, Branch 201 - January 2003

Cincinnati, Ohio
Hey buddy, can you spare a red flag? If I had a red flag, I would take it to the corner of Liberty and Dalton and drive it right through the concrete where Cincinnati's very own horror chamber, the main Post Office, sits. The Dispute Resolution Process was supposed to bring an end to the acrimony that had existed for too long between postal management and the NALC. Both sides were supposed to work together to put an end to the many, many problems that plagued the grievance procedure. While there may have been some pockets in this country where DRP is working, and while DRP may have been working in Cincinnati, initially, it is safe to say that is no longer the case. Described by management as "pro-union" from the very beginning, many here knew that it was only a matter of time before the Cincinnati Reich would weave its wicked will and do anything and everything to undermine and sabotage the process. Although problems were reported in this column some time ago, the only thing that came of it was that the person who wrote it, received a verbal thrashing from a national officer. Apparently, the problems of this branch have been placed on a pay-no-mind list by those whose job it is to give assistance in these matters. Oh well. Life is full of comings and goings.
Jim Meale, Branch 43 - December 2002

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Here's the postal theory on relativity regarding the Dispute Resolution Process. A union steward files a notice of a possible grievance with management. The seven-day clock begins in dealing with a possible dispute. The steward requests grievance time on 3996's on each of the work days in the informal Step A process. Management denies time for each and every day requested. Its now the seventh day, and the steward has no option but to write the grievance up on the 8190 form and send it out to the formal Step A principles. The Step A principles have no information to work with other than the 8190 and whatever resolution the steward made to settle the dispute on the form. Step A principles phone the Step B DRT district team to ask for guidance. The Step B team's response; "Send the grievance back and give them ten days to work it out and go from there." That's not the way it's supposed to be working. Here's a second example. A grievance has been worked on in the informal Step A (station level). However, due to records necessary to verify and limited steward time given, it takes longer than seven days to move it to formal Step A after the parties disagree. At formal Step A, the principles cannot settle either. The Step B team gets the grievance, reviews the dispute, arrives at the conclusion that it's untimely, and throws it out. The postal theory on relativity of the DRP process is, then, one that stonewalls the union advocate and takes however long to do a grievance. Occasionally, the system does work; and it recently did to the tune of $38,000, marking the six digit figures in grievance money over the last three years at "The John," an eldritch place for sure.
Gordie Skare, Branch 2 - November 2002

Rockville, Maryland
Recently, we attended a "refresher" dispute resolution class by the Step B team. We were told that they were trained to resolve grievances by applying the philosophy of INTEREST BASED RESOLUTION. In whose interest? The Step B team said, the Postal Services. What is going on here? Why weren't we told about this? Recently we received a spate of Article 8 decisions which were clearly in the interest of management, not the carriers. The grievances were denied because management didn't "believe" that carriers would need overtime, despite documented 3996's and witness testimony. By doing this, the B Team has eviscerated any reason for management to comply with Article 8. How is negating the jointly negotiated contract provisions in the interests of the Postal Service? Is INTEREST BASED RESOLUTION being applied by Step B teams nationally? These questions must be answered immediately.
Kenneth Lerch, Branch 3825 - November 2002

Staten Island, New York
There is another dark cloud on the horizon and it is fast settling on the Dispute Resolution Process which has never been one of my favorite topics. Although we recently attended our National Convention, complete with informational seminars on many interesting facets of our postal lives, I seem to have missed the discussion concerning the latest tweak in the DIRT process. I learned of the Interest Based Decision Making, or IBDM as it is known in closed circles, just prior to the deadline for branch articles and quickly scrapped my article to voice my concern over the latest adjustment to an already questionable process. Yes, questionable! I questioned the need for this "new" grievance process from day one and told anyone who would listen that the only problem with our original process, was that the Union was not mandating that management keep to the time limits at steps 3 and 4. The delays that followed and the backups in the system was because of the failure to adhere to the specific time frames. That said, we now revisit DIRT and IBDM. The grievance process is not supposed to be a lovefest, it is a clash between the ideals of one party and the power of another. The settlement should be based on the presented facts and an appropriate solution and not finding the answers to such psycho babel questions as "What do you really want?" "What are your interests?" "What fears, desires, and concerns have led you to address this problem?" These are not my words. They are taken from the refresher course on DIRT which is working its way to a seminar near you. Our members deserve swift justice and the union's job is to ensure that goal. Let's get back on track.
Paul T. Alexander, Branch 203 - November 2002

Kansas City, Missouri
This month, I'd like to touch on a subject that has been sticking in my craw for quite some time now. It is an injustice that effects every member. I am talking about the DRP process. I recently learned first hand about this injustice, while working on a case for one of my co-workers. I, along with the formal Step A Union designee, worked many hard hours proving Management did not have just cause for their actions of Discipline. Furthermore, Management was untimely with their discipline by, get this, 54 days! Here I am thinking we have this one in the bag. All the training we receive as stewards, we've learned if either side is untimely, and they have no case! Period! Well, think again! I learned after the decision was final, that the untimely issue was overlooked, missed, disregarded, etc. When I asked the DRP team about this part of the case, I was disappointed to find out it was missed because of the overwhelming caseload they have to deal with. Simple fact is, they had to skim over the case file, make a decision, and dispose of the case so they could move on to the next one! I thought the DRP process was to relieve these problems with the grievance process but obviously this isn't happening. I do not want to lay the blame solely at the feet of the DRP Team, I know they have a tough job to settle these cases. I think both sides need to look at this problem, and figure out a way to relieve the case load, so these cases can be decided solely on the merits of the case, and not the pressure to move on to the next case!
Mike Galate, Branch 30 - October 2002

Rockville, Maryland
Our postmaster has violated just about every section of the National Agreement over the last two years. Instead of taking his lumps, he attacked the president of our branch with discipline. Instead of complying with the contract, he tried to trump up discipline on the current president of our branch. When this postmaster does not get his way he lashes out. He has complained about some Step B settlements and refused to comply with a recent Step B answer. We grieved this, citing non-compliance with a Step B answer and asked for $100 payable to the charity of our choice. Incredibly, this postmaster threatened to take legal action against the Step B team and put it in writing! What happens when a member complains about a Step B answer now? Was the Step B team intimidated by the postmaster? When the Step B team is writing a settlement from now on, in the back of their minds has to be the threat of being sued by management. How does the playing field get leveled after the postmaster has threatened the Step B team with legal action? After all, no one wants the hassle of being sued! We recently won an arbitration concerning the following language found on PS 3971; I understand that the annual leave authorized in excess of amount available to me during the leave year will be changed to LWOP. We took the position the leave automatically is converted to approved LWOP and won. Management has already told us they will not comply with this arbitration decision! I want to take this opportunity to thank our NBA, Richard Gentry, and our RAA, Tim Dowdy, for all the support they have provided to me and our branch during these unprecedented attacks from our postmaster.
Kenneth Lerch, Branch 3825 - October 2002

South Jersey, New Jersey
HIP HIP HOORAY. Well another convention has come and gone and I guess one of the biggest surprises was the stepping down of President Sombrotto. Vince served this union quite well in his tenure and brought this nearly bankrupt union back to its thriving and successful state that it is today. I could go on and on to speak of his accomplishments but we must move on and begin to face new challenges with new leadership. One disturbing thing I heard at the convention dealt with the new Dispute Resolution Process. Bill Young in addressing the huge crowd attending the seminar stated that he is behind the team leaders when they feel it is proper to remove letter carriers when cases come before them. He went on to say that the teams have already removed over 115 carriers. He basically said that this wasn't too bad considering the number of employees that are employed in the Postal Service. You are going to have a few bad apples in the bunch, so if we must get rid of those, then so be it! Excuse me? When I heard these remarks I was taken back, since I thought this union was there to represent all carriers and would go to every means possible to defend their rights, no matter how dire the case may appear, even if we had to appeal before an arbitrator. Those two ugly words keep coming back to haunt me, COMPANY UNION! I will continue on my soapbox criticizing this process, the good and the bad, until I feel it is being utilized to its greatest potential for everyone involved.
Gary DiGiacomo, Branch 908 - October 2002

Jackson, Michigan
edited - Reading other Branch articles I find it very difficult to believe a union brother/sister sitting on the Step B DRT team would agree to terminate a fellow union brother/sister. Sounds to me like a Duty of Fair Representation charge with the NLRB. ... CUT AND ROLL!!!
Bob Czartoryski, Branch 232 - July 2002

South Jersey, New Jersey
Have we become a "COMPANY UNION"? With the overwhelming ratification of our new contract, specifically article 15, we now have made the dispute resolution process the new grievance procedure. Call me the branch pessimist, but I think we may be in for a long 5 years if this process stays in it's current format. I have no problem with the basic concept behind this process, but I still believe we have a long way to go before I can adopt it as the best way to handle grievances. It appears to me that arbitration's will become a thing of the past. We have already lost two employees in removal cases in this district from Step B decisions. I cannot understand how our union reps on this team would allow a removal to go through without at least giving our advocates a chance to present a case before an arbitrator. If that is not the smell of a "company" union, then I don't know what is. Speaking of the DRT, our branch believes there are a lot of problems that need to be addressed if the process is going to be effective. One of the main issues we see that needs to be looked at is the location of the DRT office. We believe the team should be located in an office that is distanced from the district, because of the constant interference that can occur while located in the same building. We will be submitting an amendment to article 15 at the national convention this year requesting the national to look into the location of the DRT offices, which needs to be relocated to a neutral site. We are asking your support for this amendment, because if our district is representative of the nation, we all are in the same boat. Lets stand up and be heard and let our national leaders hear our call for change.
Gary DiGiacomo, Branch 908 - July 2002

Elmhurst, Illinois
Radical, according to one definition in Webster's, is defined as "an effort to seek drastic reform." I've often thought of this branch as a bunch of radicals. I know that we were one of the first branches in the country to support a young, vocal radical member of Branch 36 in New Your, who sought out drastic reform. That man, of course, became our current President, Vince Sombrotto. Through the years, the tag "radical branch" has meant different things to many people. But, to be sure, our branch has always supported the NALC. This is the first time, in my recollection, that I've had to openly criticize a decision of the Sombrotto team because, to my mind, it is their one and only failure in the past 24 years. I am referring, of course, to the Dispute Resolution Process. In Illinois, we had the best of all worlds; a great grievance procedure, an incredible record of successes, and the knowledge our members shared that they would get justice. Now we have a miserable skeleton of a grievance procedure, with decisions rendered that boggle the mind. This great "team" of ours hasn't, to my knowledge, sent one single case to an arbitrator. Neither a 7 or 14 day suspension - nor a removal. Progressive discipline? Not with these two and not with a system that starts out fairly only to simply suck in the end at Step B. If I'm in trouble, I'd just as soon boot them and take a chance with Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe. To those letter carriers soon to be standing in the unemployment line, I suggest you vote no on the contract for this sole issue. DRP must go. Unfortunately, DRP may end up being Vince's "legacy", and that would be a shame.
Jay R. Ricke, Branch 825 - June 2002

Hartford, Connecticut
The first 3-4 contracts in the 1970's were mailed by the Ratification Committee to the members along with a majority (ascenting) and a minority (dissenting) opinion. (Branch 36 President Vince Sombrotto always recommended against passage.) The contracts were always ratified, except for 1978. This process spoke to an all-inclusive NALC which not only protected, but encouraged differing opinions and healthy debate. What a difference a few years makes! Consider this: The alleged "13 pay raises" equates to 5 incremental raises which will flounder behind the cost-of-living and 8 COLA's which further weaken our wages' purchasing power. A 10% increase in uniform allotments will barely keep ahead of price increases. How many will benefit from redefining the status of unassigned regulars, from granting the same transfer rights to Grade 2 Technicians, from an arbitration scheduling task force, from receiving 70% of salary adjustments after being without their money for over 2 months? How many members will utilize the MOU's for Sick Leave for Dependent Care and Leave Sharing? In actual numbers or percentages, these are not across-the-board items which benefit all members. The permanency of the Alternate Dispute Resolution process is - on it's own - cause to vote "no" on ratification. If ratified, the next national president won't have to negotiate a new contract during his/her entire first 4-year term in office! The proposed contract also falls far short of providing for workroom floor carriers the "...harmonious atmosphere, devoid of any acrimony..." which Sombrotto states occurred during these negotiations. (Really? Then why were we 6 months without a contract?!?) Is it coincidence that the timeline established by "National" for mailing out and counting the ratification ballots are so strict as to prelude from allowing any scribes from opining in an issue of the POSTAL RECORD? You decide.
Michael L. Willadsen, Branch 86 - June 2002

Western Wayne County, Michigan
Despite all the praise and carrying on about the glorious Dispute Resolution Process, the state of alternate grievance process continues to deteriorate here in the Detroit District. We have documented several examples of inappropriate District Level Management interference with the process, and the situation appears to be getting worse. District management labor relations personnel routinely lead local management Step A representatives around by the nose. In many instances management has conceded their authority to resolve local issues without first obtaining permission to do so. In one recent high profile disciplinary case, the Union's proposed settlement of the case was acceptable to the Postmaster of the Installation involved, only to be vetoed by the self appointed tin gods at the District Level. Meanwhile, the Step B Teams have been relocated to an office in the same facility as the District Labor Relations Office, which is akin to locating the hen house next door to the foxes den. You can't expect management liars and cheats not to lie and cheat when the opportunity presents itself, and they have now unlimited opportunities to do so. The grievance process remains a strictly adversarial process, not a cooperative one, and the "jointness" of the DRP is merely a matter of show, and not of reality. The DRP happy talk might play well elsewhere in our nation, but please, spare us the phony rhetoric about the many splendors of the alternate process. Most supervisors don't know a JCAM from a comic book, and could care less about finding out. Contract violations are a routine aspect of conducting business for most of them. The DRP remains void of real accountability on both sides of the labor relations table. The "numbers" may look good, but numbers are management's game, not ours.
Joe Golonka, Branch 2184 - June 2002

Flushing, New York
I wrote last month about the problem with allowing the Dispute Resolution Step B team terminating letter carriers. And then it happened in Flushing! A sister letter carrier, one with mitigation circumstances too voluminous to mention, three children, an abusive ex-husband, was terminated by the Step B teamers. No letter carrier should EVER, EVER sign his name to the termination decision of a brother or sister letter carrier!!! The management crony would NEVER, NEVER sign off on disciplining his own kind, no matter how bad the individual, no matter how bad the joint statement abuse!!! We are setting a dangerous precedent. This decision has nothing to do with saving the Postal Barons. It has nothing to do with integrity or trust of sound reasoning. The Barons only speak to us when they need us to legitimize their existence. Never should we condone their workplace executions. Are we also going to condone firing carriers for missing a MSP scan while he/she spends 10 hour days moving twenty feet of mail in hazardous weather? Do we exist only to please their percentages to legitimize their bonuses? Will firing a sister fill the bonus quota pot? If so, brothers and sisters, we have signed off on the destruction of our own integrity and no carrier, no matter his position has the right to do that!
Mark Sobel, Branch 294 - April 2002

St. Louis, Missouri
edited - In St. Louis the new DRT process is no help. We are on a record-setting pace on the number of grievances filed in a year.
Tom Schuite, Branch 343 - April 2002

Tri-Valley, California
The heat is on! I haven't heard this much back biting, finger pointing, crying and haggling by management in over 20 years. Every article in every newsletter, NALC, APWU or management, reads like a sad country song .. "she got the goldmine, we got the shaft!" If this comany doesn't get it's proverbial head out of it's ___, postal reform won't be necessary, there won't be a USPanything to reform! Monday 3/4 I attended a President's meeting with several other Union Presidents and the major players at district. The DM, operations programs, MPO's, Labor Relations, safety, DRT. We discussed the budget crunch, their plans to "recapture" work hours and escalating grievance numbers. My branch 2902 accounted for 67% of the DRT cases yet we are only 35% of the carrier compliment in the district. Our numbers are high because a few Postmasters are stubborn and punitive. They refuse to correct violations and consistently pass the buck to a higher level to pay the remedy. They have asked us to meet with them one on one to determine who the offending parties are and help resolve these issues. I told them, I'm ready when you are. Today however, is 3/7 and that means everything can change. An anonymous call told me that there were 268 feet of delayed mail in one city. Why delayed? No budget, no hours to move it. Along with this choice tid bit, was a copy of a CC mail. To all PM's .. no one is to work their PTF or casual carriers more than 30 hrs per week! Well that settles that! Art.8's will go nuts and I guess we'll just make budget by storing mail instead of delivering it! Service my ass!
Bev Mattes, Branch 2902 - April 2002

Jackson, Michigan
edited - To the scribe from Wyandotte, MI... ya hit da nail right on da head. It's a shame we can't do owr own grievances instead of an ex-EI facilitator. We should trade decisions and read them standing uo; it hurts to sit down.
Bob Czartoryski, Branch 232 - December 1999

Wyandotte, Southgate, Riverview, Michigan
HELP WANTED: Concerned members of the NALC, KIM Region are desperately seeking individuals with integrity for positions on the Dispute Resolution Team. Interested members should possess a willingness to work for the betterment of our membership. Efforts should at least approximate those of our local stewards and branch presidents. It would be helpful if applicants had some knowledge of our collective bargaining agreement. Being able to actually read grievances would be a plus! Who picks these guys anyway? Our beloved National Business Agent, that�s who. We have a guy on the Dispute Resolution Team who�s last job was rubbing shoulders with postal management in their wonderful EI program. We send him completely documented roadmaps (ie, grievances with copies of arbitration�s, pages from the Joint CAM, ect.) and he still doesn�t have a clue. He handles (actually mishandles) our grievances as if he hasn�t even read them. Whatever management says is fine with him. Come to think of it, how did we get this Dispute Resolution Team stuff anyway? There is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement that even allows for it. Contracts can be changed in one of two manners. They can be (1) negotiated or they can be (2) arbitrated. When they are arbitrated, we members have little to say about the outcome. When they are negotiated they are subject to our ratification and then we have something to say about it. Well, with a stroke of the pen, a memorandum was negotiated that changed our grievance procedure of our collective bargaining agreement. We had nothing to say about it. We now get less time to prepare our grievances but the union representative of the DRT can take all the time he needs. It would be nice if he would actually read them before selling us out.
Keith Kloock, Branch 758 - October 1999

To view the following PDF files:

DRP Issues. A collection of articles about the Dispute Resolution Process.