Building Our Future by - National Association of Letter ...mseries.nalc.org/M01306.pdf · M-131Jb...

,

•

•

M-131Jb

Building OurFuture by

Working Together

UNITED STATESPOSTAL SERVICE

•

USP5-NALC Joint Training GuideSeptember, 1992 Memorandums of Understanding

A Joint Publication of the United States Postal Service and theNational Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-eIO - November 19, 1992

......'

•

I-

•

M - l.306

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

Chapter 1Case Configuration-Letter Size Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Chapter 2Hempstead Resolution-The Past 9

Chapter 3The Future: Unilateral Process 15

Chapter 4The Future: X-Route Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27

Chapter 5Delivery Point Sequencing Work Methods 43

Chapter 6Transitional Employees 47

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57

A 58B 59C 62D 65E 70F 72

•Introduction

Introduction

M-1306

1

•

•

In September, 1992 the U.S. Postal Service and the National Associationof Letter Carriers decided to work together to make the change to anautomated environment. The parties executed six Memorandums ofUnderstanding which resolved past disputes and set a joint course for thefuture.

Both parties recognize that the delivery point sequencing of letter mailwill change the delivery environment, ultimately producing significantefficiency gains for the Postal Service and better service for postal customers.It will also bring about changes in the working lives of letter carriers: Officetime will shrink, most routes will be realigned and some will be abolished. Sodelivery point sequencing (DPS) represents a crucial challenge to postalmanagers, letter carriers and NALC.

Together, the six Memorandums comprise a roadmap to the changes thatdelivery point sequencing will bring to letter carrier routes. They clear theway for change by resolving a number of past disagreements. As to thefuture, they provide for careful advance planning, the setting of targets for thepercentage of mail that will be machine-sorted into DPS order, and rulesstating when letter carrier routes will be realigned to accommodate theachievement of those target DPS percentages.

•2

Joint Statement of Principles

M-1306

Introduction

•

•

One of the Memorandums, entitled"Joint Agreements" (reprinted asAppendix B to this booklet), sets fortha joint statement of principles. Theparties jointly declare that the PostalService's continued viability dependson "our ability to meet our customers'needs while empowering employees tolevels not previously envisioned."

The Memorandum reaffirms theparties' adherence to three principlesguiding their agreements on the implementation of letter mail automation oncarrier routes:

A New ApproachThese Memorandums represent a

new approach by USPS and NALC, inseveral significant ways:

• Joint training. The parties havedecided to disseminate and explainthese Memorandums through jointtraining for local managers and localunion representatives. NALC andUSPS officials will plan and conductthe training classes together, andparticipants from both parties willattend the training sessions together,on-the-clock.

• Joint administration ofMemorandums. The parties willresolve disputes concerning theMemorandums through a joint

• Providing the best service to postalcustomers (mailers and recipients).

• Minimizing the impact on lettercarrier craft employees.

• Creating an opportunity forincreased efficiency.

The parties anticipate that collectively,the Memorandums "will form the basisfor a positive working relationship ofmutual trust and respect, and thefoundation for continued empowerment of all employees."

process at the national level. A jointbody is being created which will havecontinuing responsibility for seeing thatthe Memorandums are interpreted andenforced correctly and fairly.Questions regarding proper interpretations will be forwarded to this jointbody for resolution.

• Local responsibility. The Memorandums place the responsibility forthe successful transition to a DPSenvironment squarely on theshoulders of local postal managersand local union representatives.Local managers are required toshare information with the localNALC branch, and the local partiesare strongly encouraged to make

•Introouction

and discuss plans together and toresolve problems in a joint andcollaborative fashion.

• Trust and empowennent ofemployees. The combination ofjoint training, joint administrationand local responsibility are intendedto help the local parties build

M-1306

3

productive working relationshipsbased on mutual trust and respect.Local USPS managers, local NALCrepresentatives and letter carrierswho use this opportunity will gain afair measure of control over theirworking lives and the future of thePostal Service.

Overview of the Booklet

•

•

This training booklet was createdjointly by the National Association ofLetter Carriers and the U. S. PostalService. It is a joint guide to the sixMemorandums of Understanding,intended to assist all those throughoutthe Postal Service and NALC whomust understand and implement theMemorandums' provisions.

The booklet consists of six chapters,each addressing one of the Memorandums. The actual Memorandums arereproduced in the back of the booklet,as Appendices A through F. Thechapters address the following subjects:

Chapter 1. Case ConfigurationLetter Size Mail. Authorizes the useof 4- and 5-shelf letter cases throughlocal joint agreements, and routeinspections based on those cases.

Chapter 2. Hempstead ResolutionThe Past. Remands to the local partiesfor resolution all grievances concerningpast "Hempstead-type" route

adjustments. (These "route stabilization," "6 & 2" or "router-buffer"adjustments were based on anticipatedefficiency gains from automation,rather than on out-of-adjustment routesor actual efficiency gains.) The localparties are provided criteria forevaluating the merits of thosegrievances and, where necessary, thelocal parties are encouraged toformulate practical remedies.

Chapter 3. The Future-UnilateralProcess. Resolves issues leftoutstanding by Arbitrator RichardMittenthal in the Hempstead case.

• Hempstead-type adjustmentsprohibited. Routes will no longerbe adjusted to anticipate futureefficiency gains from automatedmail sorting. "Router-buffer," "routestabilization" or "6 & 2" adjustmentswill not be used.

• Unilateral process. Outlines aunilateral process local managers

•

•

•

4

may use to establish delivery pointsequence (DPS) target percentagesfor letter mail, make a plan to adjustroutes when the targets are reached,and implement the adjustmentswhen the time comes.

• Methodology to estimate DPSimpact. Sets forth a simplemethodology-based on the carrier'sdemonstrated performance-thatmust be used to estimate the impacton carrier routes of achieving theDPS target percentage.

Chapter 4. The Future-X-Route.Outlines a joint, collaborative processthe local parties may use to plan inadvance for route realignments thatwill occur after the DPS targetpercentage is achieved. Under thisalternative to the unilateral process, thelocal parties work jointly to identifyX-Routes-routes slated for

M-1306

Introduction

abolishment when the DPS targetpercentage is reached. The X-Routeprocess places trust in the good senseand commitment to the Postal Serviceof local managers and local NALCrepresentatives.

Chapter 5. Delivery Point SequencingWork Methods. Establishes two workmethods, one of which must be usedby letter carriers to handle residual(non-DPS) mail in a DPS environment.Requires the local parties to jointlychoose one of the two methods.

Chapter 6. Transitional Employees.Resolves a number of pastdisagreements concerning theimplementation of ArbitratorMittenthal's January 16, 1992 interestarbitration award on transitionalemployees. Provides that the partieswill create a joint training booklet onthe subject of transitional letter carriers.

•Chapter 1 - Case Conl'lguration-Letter Size Mail

Chapter 1

Case ConfigurationLetter Size Mail

M-1306

5

•

•

The Memorandum on case configuration resolves a dispute that aroseduring the implementation of the January 10, 1990 Vertical Flat CaseAgreement. The Vertical Flat Case Agreement had authorized the modificationof flat cases only. However, some NALC branches had also agreed with localmanagement to use four or five shelf letter cases or to case letter size mail intofour or five shelf vertical flat cases.

Because these arrangements violated the existing provisions of the M-39Handbook requiring the use of six-shelf cases for letter size mail, NALCnotified its local unions that route inspections could only be conducted on sixshelf cases regardless of any local agreement to modify letter cases. NALC'sprimary concern was that the use for four or five shelf cases to sort letter mailcould have the effect of modifying the existing definition of letter size mail andthereby change the "18 and 8" standard for adjusting letter carrier routes.

Under the new case configuration Memorandum (reprinted as AppendixA to this booklet), the local parties can agree to use four or five shelf lettercases, and route inspections may be conducted with those agreed-upon cases.However, the Memorandum addresses NALC's concerns by providing that theexisting definition of letter-size mail will not change and that the "18 and 8"standard for adjusting routes remains applicable.

In the material below, the Memorandum language appears in the leftcolumn of each page and the explanation in the right column.

•6

101-1306

Chapter 1 - Case Configuration-Letter Size Mail

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBETWEEN THE

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICEAND THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LEITER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO

•

•

For the purpose of conducting mailcounts and route inspections ontraditional casing equipment, letter sizeis defined as mail that can be casedinto the letter separations of a standardsix-shelf case without folding or bending(approximately six inches in height).Letter size does not includenewspapers, rolls, small parcels, flats,magazines, or catalogs under twopounds, even though these items maybe cased into the letter separations of astandard case without folding orbending.

"Letter Size" Mail Defined

This paragraph merely restates, butdoes not change, the existing definitionof "letter size" mail that currentlyappears in the M-39 and M-41Handbooks. Section 121.12 of the M-39Handbook states:

121.12 Letter Mail Defined. Lettersize mail is defined as mail whichcan be routed into the carrier casebetween separators, verticallywithout bending or folding. Thesize of mail is determined by thesmallest vertical space between anytwo shelves on a particular case.(See Methods Handbook M-41,Section 922.41.)

Section 922.411 of the M-41 Handbookstates:

922.411 Letter size (ordinary letters,cards, and circulars) includes all mailtha t can be cased into letterseparations without bending orfolding - as well as misthraws of allclasses and types of mail. It doesnot include newspapers, rolls, smallparcels, flats, magazines or catalogseven though they are intended forcasing with letter mail:

•Chapter i-Case Configuration-Letter Size Mail

M-1306

7

•

•

When mail counts and route inspectionsare conducted in a unit where lettermail is cased into four- and/or five-shelfcase configurations that have beenestablished as a result of any jointagreement, the existing definition ofletter-sized mail will not change; the 18and 8 standard remains applicable.Under these conditions, localmanagement will meet with the localunion prior to the dry run training todetermine an efficient means to verifymail of questionable size during theweek of count and inspection, e.g., ameasuring strip on each case or use ofa template as a reference point.

Route Inspections Authorized

This paragraph establishes twoprinciples:

• First, route inspections areauthorized using four or five shelfletter cases, but only when those caseconfigurations have been establishedas a result of joint agreementbetween local management and thelocal union. (It is suggested thatsuch local agreements be reduced towriting to avoid problems wherelocal leaders change.) Managementis not authorized to unilaterallyintroduce four or five shelf lettercases.

• Second, local management is requiredto meet with the union prior to thedry run training to determine anefficient means to verify letter sizemail of questionable size during theweek of count and inspection.

Verification method. The languagesuggests two specific methods toverify mail size-a measuring stripon each case, or the use of atemplate as a reference point.However, it does not restrict thelocal parties to the two methodssuggested. They are free to agree toother methods.


•8

The acceptance by the parties of thisapproach to letter size definition andcase configuration is without prejudiceto the parties' rights under Article 34 ofthe National Agreement, and shall notbe cited by either party in the grievanceor arbitration procedure or any otherforum which does not pertain to theimplementation of this agreement.

M-1306

Memo May Not be Cited in aGrievance

The Memorandum does not affect inany way the parties' rights underArticle 34 (Work and/or TimeStandards). Nor may it be used byeither party to support a position in agrievance. In particular, it does notresolve grievances, filed prior to theimplementation of this Memorandum,which concerned route inspectionsconducted using four or five shelfletter cases.

Any disputes over the implementationof this Memorandum will be resolvedat the National level.

• Issues Related to This Memorandum

•

• Four or five shelf case only. Thismemorandum addresses only theuse of four or five shelf standardletter cases. Letter cases with fewerthan four shelves are not current!yauthorized and will not be used.The memorandum does not authorize any other modification to lettercarrier casing equipment-such asextensions, shortened legs, etc.

• One-bundle system requires jointagreement. The two-bundle andmodified two-bundle casing systemsmay be used with four or five shelfletter cases. However, use of the

one-bundle system on other than thestandard six-shelf letter caserequires a joint agreement betweenthe local parties. (It is suggestedthat any such agreement be reducedto writing.)

In a modified two-bundle systemnewspapers, magazines and flats arecased into letter separations,withdrawn and strapped out beforeletter-size mail is cased andstrapped out. In the one-bundlesystem flat and letter-size mail arecased, withdrawn and strapped outtogether. See M-41 Section 222 forfurther explanation.

•14-1306

Chapter 2 - Hempstead Resolution-The Past

Chapter 2

Hempstead ResolutionThe Past

9

•

•

As noted above in the introduction, one of the Memorandums deals withpast "router-buffer" or "6 & 2" adjustments-here called "Hempstead-type"adjustments-by remanding grievances over those adjustments to the localparties. The Memorandum also provides criteria for those parties to use indeciding whether the adjustments were proper and in remedying anyviolations they find. This Memorandum is entitled "Joint Agreements" andappears as Appendix B to this booklet.


•

•

•

10

Hempstead Resolution-The Past

We are remanding all pendinggrievances on route adjustments to thelocal parties for resolution. The partieswill be guided by the principles of theabove-cited agreements and must takeinto consideration the following factors.

• Was there a current event; that is,were the routes out of adjustment?

M-1306


Past Grievances Remanded

This language remands all Hempsteadtype grievances to the local parties atStep 2 for resolution. It further statesthat the resolution of Hempstead-typegrievances will be based generally onthe principles set forth in all of the sixmemorandums, and announces that thelocal parties will use specific criteria(below) to determine whether pastadjustments were proper.

First Step: Were Routes Out ofAdjustment?

• "Current event" defined. Under theguidelines, the parties must firstdetermine whether or not there wasa "current event." "Current event" isdefined by the Memorandumentitled, "Resolution of Issues LeftOpen by Mittenthal Award of July10, 1992," as follows:

A current event is defined asa route or routes which areshown to be out of adjustment by a recent routeinspection and evaluation.

• Current event required. Thislanguage is intended to distinguishthose past adjustments that weretriggered by actual out-ofadjustment routes, from adjustmentswhich were made when routes werenot out of adjustment. Pastadjustments that were made withouta current event-that is when routeswere not out of adjustment-will beconsidered violations of the contract,and were therefore improper.


•

•

•

• How far in advance was thefuture event that was used toadjust the route? The partieshave made no determination asto the appropriate time period.

• What was the projected timing ofthe upcoming event?

101-1306

11

Additional factors.

All Hempstead-type adjustments weremade to anticipate a "futureevent"-that is, an expectation of futuremail-sorting automation and efficiencygains in carrier work resulting fromthat automation.

Where routes were already out ofadjustment when this type ofadjustment was made, to decidewhether the adjustment violated thecontract the parties are directed toexamine certain additional factors. Thefactors address the nature of the futureevent (the introduction of automation)used as the basis for the adjustments:the timing of the automation, thecertainty that it would occur, and theaccuracy of estimates made of the impacton letter carriers work hours.

• Timing-no hard-and-fast rule.The Postal Service may have madepast Hempstead-type adjustmentsbased on automation expected tooccur in the near term or anticipatedto occur further into the future. Thenational parties have not determineda hard-and-fast rule to determinethe appropriateness of the timeframe used in those pastadjustments.

Note on 6- and IS-month timeperiods: The Memorandumentitled, "Resolution of Issues LeftOpen by Mittenthal Award of July10, 1992:' authorizes the PostalService to plan for future routeadjustments-those occurring afterthese six Memorandums wereexecuted-using certain 6- and 18month time frames. (See Chapter 3,

- -------------------------------------

•

•

•

12

• What was the basis fordetermining the effect of thefuture event?

M-1306


below.) However, those time frameshave no application to the resolutionof past grievances over Hempsteadtype adjustments.

• Accuracy of carrier hour impactestimates. The national partiesagree that in past cases there was nospecific methodology that management was required to use toestimate the effect of the futureevent. Whatever method was used,the local parties should determinewhether it produced a reasonableestimate of the future impact ofautomation.

New methodology does not applyto past estimates. The Memorandum entitled, "Resolution of IssuesLeft Open by Mittenthal Award ofJuly 10, 1992," established amethodology for projecting theimpact of delivery point sequencing(DPS) automation on letter carrierwork hours. (See Chapter 3, below.)That methodology must be appliedin the future-after these September,1992 memorandums were executed.Management was not required to usethis methodology in making pastestimates for Hempstead-type routeadjustments. However, the partiesmay apply this methodology todetermine the accuracy of pastestimates. Generally, if the estimatepreviously made and the estimatethat results from use of themethodology are in the sameballpark, then the accuracy criterionhas been met.


•

•

•

• How certain is that future event?

As you review each case, you will findthat either:

• Management preplannedproperly and the currentstructure is within the purview ofthis agreement; therefore, thecurrent structure is valid;

or

• Management preplannedinappropriately or time frameshave changed, negating thevalidity of the adjustment.

It is your obligation to make these jointdeterminations and to decide whatremedy to apply and how to fix theproblem if one is discovered. Theparties should consider the impact ofany decision on our employees whoserve our customers and the impact onthe customers which they serve. If theparties cannot resolve these cases,they may be appealed to regionalarbitration.

1~-1306

13

• Certainty. The local parties mustdetermine the certainty of anyfuture event that was used to planthe route adjustments. Relevantconsiderations include deploymentschedules for Delivery Point BarCode (DPBC) equipment and anyequipment that causes mail to bereceived in the unit in delivery pointsequence. The parties may find thatthe future event was uncertainbecause "time frames have changed,negating the validity of theadjustment."

Detennining Validity of Adjustment

Using the criteria provided, the localparties are directed to determinewhether or not the past Hempsteadtype adjustments were valid.

In some cases management may havepreplanned appropriately, but asubsequent change in time frames hasrendered the adjustment invalid. Inthat circumstance, the parties mustreassess the situation to determinewhether any changes are appropriate atthis point.

Local Parties Should Fashion PracticalRemedies

Where the past adjustments wereinvalid, the parties are stronglyencouraged to decide locally how toresolve the problem. The solutionsfashioned should take into account theneeds of both postal customers and theemployees who serve them.

•

•

•

14

M-1306


The parties' intent is to resolve thesepast adjustment issues quickly and in away that both addresses the parties'interests and helps us move forwardtogether. We hope to put these issuesbehind us and then shift our focus tothe challenges ahead. Regionalarbitration of these matters should bepursued only as a last resort.

•Chapter 3 - The Future-Unilateral Process

Chapter 3

The Future:Unilateral Process

M-13lJ6

15

•

•

Two of the six Memorandums outline the procedures that must be usedto plan and implement route adjustments to accommodate the delivery pointsequencing (DPS) of letter size mail. There are two sets of procedures, one ofwhich must be selected to accomplish this complex task.

This chapter addresses the first option, which is a unilateral process inwhich managers plan and implement the route adjustments. These proceduresare outlined in the Memorandum entitled, "Resolution of Issues Left Open byMittenthal Award of July 10, 1992," reprinted as Appendix C to this booklet.

The second option is a joint process known as the "X-Route" process, inwhich the local parties jointly make plans to adjust routes. Chapter 4addresses the X-Route process.


•16

M-J.3ll6

Chapter 3 - The Future-Unilateral Process



NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES LEFT OPEN BYMITTENTHAL AWARD OF JULY 10,1992

•

•

Current Events and Adjustments

A current event is defined as a route orroutes which are shown to be out ofadjustment by a recent route inspectionand evaluation. All current adjustmentsto existing routes will place the route onas near an a-hour daily basis aspossible, in accordance with HandbookM-39.

Rules for Future Adjusbnents

This Memorandum begins by defininga "current event"-an issue leftoutstanding by the Mittenthal award.A current event is defined as a route orroutes that are shown to be out ofadjustment.

This language means that the PostalService:

1. May not adjust a route unless it isshown to be currently out ofadjustment. This does not precludeterritorial adjustments necessary tobring out of adjustment routes to asnear 8 hours as possible;

2. Must continue to keep routesadjusted to as near 8 hours as possible, using the usual M-39 procedures, as it moves toward anautomated environment (thisincludes the right of letter carriers torequest to special inspections underM-39 Section 271.g);

3. Must continue to adjust routeswhere a route inspection shows aroute is currently out ofadjustment-within 52 days of the

•

•

•


Adjustments Near Term-Automation

When routes require a currentadjustment and Delivery PointSequencing will commence within 6months, management will adjust theroutes using non-territorial, non-schemechange adjustments by the use ofrouter assistance, segmentation orpermanent handoffs as outlined in theM-39 Handbook Section 243.21 b. The6-month period runs from the first dayafter the week of route inspection.

Future Events andAdjustments-Automation

Management may utilize the results ofa recent route inspection and evaluationto estimate and plan route adjustments,including realignment of assignments,that will be required by a future eventwhich is to take place within 18 months.Management must providedocumentation to the local union tosupport the deployment if they intend toplan the adjustments for a future event.The planned adjustments for futureevents will not be implemented untilautomation is on line and operative.

1-1-13 06

17

completion of the inspection asrequired by M-39 Section 211.3; and

4. May no longer use Hempstead-typeadjustments-which were based onestimated impacts on carrier routesdue to automation. This agreementeffectively eliminates the use ofrouters as buffers for automation.

Exception

The section provides a narrowexception to the general rules statedabove. When postal managers candemonstrate that delivery pointsequencing of letter mail will beginwithin six months after the week ofroute inspections, territorialadjustments should not be used.Rather, they must use non-territorialprocedures such as segmentation,permanent handoffs or routerassistance.

Unilateral Planning for RouteRealignment

This section outlines management'sright to undertake unilaterallywithout NALC approval-a plan forthe realignment of letter carrier routesafter delivery point sequencing isintroduced and reaches certain targetedlevels. If there is no local agreement touse the X-Route process as analternative (see Chapter 4 below), thismethod must be used. Under this"unilateral" process, management hasthe right to plan for the routerealignment in advance, but cannot

•

•

•

18

Management may implement theplanned adjustments if the actualpercentage of Delivery Point Sequence(DPS) mail received at the unit is withinplus or minus 5 percentage points ofthe targeted (in Step 1) level. Shouldthe actual percentage of DPS mail beoutside these limits, then managementmust recalculate the estimated impacton carrier routes, based on the actualpercentage of DPS mail being receivedat the unit. The results of the recentroute inspection and evaluation will beused to determine a new impact andconstruct a new plan or managementmay wait for the plan levels to bereceived. The 18-month period runsfrom the first day after the week ofroute inspection. For purposes of thisagreement, a future event is defined asmail being received at a delivery unit inDPS order.

M-1306


implement the adjustments before thetarget DPS percentage is reached. Thisprocess is conducted in each individualdelivery unit. Even though thedecision-making is unilateral, theparties at the national level encourageinformation sharing and the solicitationof ideas from the union.

This process involves a series of steps:

1. Obtaining current or recent routeinspection data for the deliveryunit. First, management mustobtain current or recent routeinspection data, to use as the basisfor its planning to realign routes inresponse to delivery pointsequencing. It may use this data asthe basis for a planned routerealignment that will occur up to 18months into the future.

2. Information sharing with NALe.Where management engages inadvance planning to realign routesin response to delivery pointsequencing, it must provide NALewith the documentation supportingthe plan-including equipmentdeployment schedules, projections ofthe impact of delivery pointsequencing on carrier work hours,and the details of how routes will berealigned.

3. Establishing a DPS targetpercentage. An essential part of thePostal Service's plan is the targetedpercentage of letter mail that will bereceived by carriers in deliverypoint sequence. The target figure,determined by management, will beused for two purposes: (1) tocalculate the projected impact on

•

•

•

Chapter 2. - The Futum-Unilateral Process

M-1306

19

letter carrier office time (seeMethodology, below); and (2) totrigger the Postal Service's right toimplement the planned routerealignment.

4. Using established methodology toestimate impact on carrier workhours. Next, local postal managersmust use the parties' establishedmethodology (explained below) toestimate the impact on letter carrierhours of reaching the DPS targetpercentage. The current routeinspection data and the targetpercentage figure are the startingpoints for this calculation.

5. Re-drawing unit route maps. Next,local managers must make a plan torealign carrier rou tes in accordancewith the estimated impact. This willinvolve re-drawing the route mapsof the unit. When these plans arefinalized they must be shared withthe local union. It must be understood that under the unilateralprocess no adjustments based onautomation impact estimates canoccur until automation is on-lineand operative.

6. Implementing route realignmentwhen target DPS percentage isreached (within 5 percent). Theplanned route realignment cannot beimplemented until the percentage ofDPS letter mail is within 5 percent(plus or minus) of the targetedpercentage. The parties have agreedthat management must show it hasachieved the target percentage for aminimum of two consecutive weeks.

------------~

•

•

•

20

Within 60 days of implementing theplanned adjustments for futureautomated events, the parties willrevisit those adjustments to ensure thatroutes are as near to 8 hours daily, aspossible. Both the planned adjustmentsand subsequent minor adjustments that

M-1306


7. Recalculating if outside plus orminus 5 percent range. If the actualDPS percentage is more than 5percent above or below the targetedpercentage when the realignmentwas planned to occur, then localmanagers have a choice. First, theymay wait for the targeted DPSpercentage to be reached and thenimplement the route realignment.Or, second, they may recalculate theestimated impact on carrier routesusing the actual percentage of DPSmail being received in the unit.This recalculation will be madeusing the established methodology,and it will require re-drawing theroute map for the plannedadjustments.

8. Abolishment of carrier routes.When carrier routes are abolishedand the Local Memorandum ofUnderstanding includes Article41.3.0, routes in the unit must berebid in accordance with thatprovision. Otherwise, a carrierwhose route is abolished becomesan unassigned regular and eligibleto bid on any vacant assignmentwithin his or her bidding area. Thisincludes residual vacancies,positions held pending reversionand positions withheld forexcessing.

Post-Realignment Adjustments

Within 60 days after implementing theroute realignment, the local partiesmust reexamine the adjustments toensure that routes are as near to eighthours as possible. If not, they must be

•

•

•


may be necessary to ensurecompliance will be based on the mostrecent route inspection data for theroute. However, if the future eventoccurs after the 18-month time limitexpires, a new mail count, routeinspection and evaluation must occur,unless the local parties agreeotherwise.

Methodology

Where the future event is theintroduction of Delivery Point BarCoding (DPBC) for existing equipmentor equipment that will cause a certainpercentage of letter mail to be receivedby the unit in DPS, the followingmethodology will be used to estimatethe impact of the event on city deliveryroutes:

M-1306

21

adjusted in accordance with the M-39.Where the most recent route inspectiondata is less than 18 months old at thispoint, then that data may be used tomake any necessary post-realignmentadjustments. However, if the data ismore than 18 months old, then a newmail count and inspection must beconducted unless the local partiesagree otherwise.

Purpose of the Methodology

The parties have jointly established amethodology for estimating thereduction in carrier office time that willresult from letter size mail beingreceived in delivery point sequence(DPS). The methodology will be usedin each separate delivery unit, toestimate the total hourly impact for theunit.

• Mandatory. This methodology ismandatory-it must be used toestimate office time reductionsunder both the "unilateral" processand the joint X-Route processdescribed in Chapter 4.

• Based on actual route inspectiondata. The methodology is basedupon actual letter mail casing timesand actual letter volumes from eachindividual carrier route examination.Thus, it is based on demonstratedperformance and individual efforts,and not on any "assumed" efficiencygains from automation.

• Data collection. In order to performthe calculations, first the followingdata must be collected:

•

•

•

22

Step 1. Determine the percentage ofletter-sized mail targeted to bereceived in DPS order on thedate when the adjustmentswill be implemented.

Step 2. MUltiply percentagedetermined in Step 1 by theaverage letter-sized mailreceived during the week ofcount and inspection (from PSForm 1840, Column 1) todetermine the number ofletters for each route. targetedto be received in DPS order.

M-1306

Chapter 3 • The Future-Unilateral Process

1. Route letter volume. Averagedaily letter size mail volume foreach route during the week ofcount and inspection. This datashould be obtained from page 1,Column 1 (Averages) of theForm 1840, "Summary of Countand Inspection."

2. Actual percentage of standardoffice time used. Thepercentage of standard officetime used on each route duringthe week of count andinspection. This data should beobtained from page 1, ColumnsA and B (Averages) of the Form1840. Percentage = (Column AAverage .;- Column B Average)X 100.

After this data is collected themethodology may be applied, asfollows.

Target percentage for DPS mail. Thisis the target percentage of letter mailthat USPS expects to be received inDPS order in the unit after DPS is fullyimplemented. See above, "Establishinga DPS target percentage."

The rest of the steps must beperformed for each individual route.

Find amount of impacted letter mail.This calculation results in an estimateof the number of letters from eachroute that will be received in DPSorder.

•

•

•


Step 3. Divide letters targeted to bereceived in DPS order (asdetermined in Step 2) by 18.

Step 4. Divide letters targeted to bereceived in DPS order (asdetermined in Step 2) by 70.

Step 5. Add results of Steps 3 and 4to determine estimatedimpact.

Step 6. For routes where the carrierwas under standard timeduring the week of count andinspection, multiply results ofStep 5 by percentage ofstandard office time usedduring the week of inspection.The result is the estimatedimpact.

M-1306

23

Find standard casing time forimpacted letters. This calculationproduces the number of minutes thatwould be required to case the impactedletters at a rate of 18 per minute.

Find standard strap-out time forimpacted letters. The result of thiscalculation is the number of minutesthat would be required to strap-out theimpacted letters at a rate of 70 perminute.

Add standard casing and strap-outtime for impacted letters. The resultof this addition is an estimate of theimpact on daily office time after DPS isimplemented. This figure will be usedonly where the carrier did not use lessthan the standard office time-that is,where the carrier did not "beatstandard."

Reduce impact based on demonstratedperformance. Where a carriers actualoffice time was less than standard, thenusing the Step 5 impact estimate wouldtake away more office time than thecarrier actually uses to case and strapout the impacted number of letters.

Step 6 adjusts the impact to reflect theactual, demonstrated performance ofthe individual letter carrier. If thecarrier used just 80 percent of standardoffice time in the past, then this stepensures that only 80 percent ofstandard time, applied to the impactedletters, will be counted toward theestimate of reduced office time.

•2.4

M-1306


Total Impact on Delivery Unit

After these calculations are made foreach individual route, the results areadded together. The result is the totalreduction in the unit's carrier officetime expected after DPS is fullyimplemented.

2,700 Letters80 Percent Automated

Note: If actual performance is over standardtime allowance, the standard casing allowanceof 18 pieces per minute is used.

EXAMPLE 1:•80 Percent Target for Letter Mail Carrier at/over

Standard Time Allowance

•2,160 + 18"2,160 + 70"

120 minutes31 minutes

151 minutes" estimated impact

Examples

In Example 1 at left the carrier usedthe standard office time (or more), soStep 6 above does not apply.

In Example 2 the carrier used 85percent of standard office time durin?the last route examination, so Step 6 IS

used to reduce the impact estimate.

•

EXAMPLE 2:

80 Percent Target for Letter Mail Carrier used85 Percent of Standard Time Allowance


2,160 + 18" 120 minutes2,160 + 70" 31 minutes

151 minutes" estimated impactSlep 6151 )( 85 percent"128 minutes"estimated impact

•

•

•


It is mutually agreed that as the partiesdevelop experience in estimating theimpact of future events, adjustments tothe above described methodology maybe jointly adopted at the national level.

Pending Grievances

All pending grievances which involvethe adjustment of routes for futureevents will be remanded to the localparties for resolution.

M-1306

25

Joint Review of Experience

The national parties intend to learnfrom the accumulated experience withthis methodology and makeadjustments as necessary.

Pending Grievances Remanded

Past Hempstead-type adjustmentgrievances are being remanded forlocal resolution (see Chapter 2, above).

•

•

•

26M-1306


•Chapter 4 - The Future-X-Route Process

Chapter 4

The Future:X-Route Process

1>1-1306

27

•

•

This chapter outlines the X-Route process-an alternative to theunilateral process set forth in Chapter 3. Under the X-Route process, localUSPS managers and NALC representatives jointly plan for delivery pointsequencing and jointly plan the route realignment that will occur when theDPS target percentage is achieved. The Memorandum of Understandingoutlining the X-Route process is reprinted as Appendix D to the booklet.

The material in this chapter is explanation only, unlike the other chapters.The chapter has an introduction followed by a series of numbered sectionsexplaining the X-Route process.

•2.'0

101-1306

Chapter 4 - The Future-X-Route Process

Introduction to X-Route

•

•

The X-Route alternative offers thePostal Service and NALC a way towork together to reconfigure carrierroutes to accommodate the deliverypoint sequencing of letter mail. Thisjoint process relies upon thecommitment, intelligence and goodsense of local managers and localunion officers to make a successfultransition to the automatedenvironment.

Under the X-Route alternative, NALCand the Postal Service decide jointly, inadvance of automation, which routeswill be abolished after delivery pointsequencing (DPS) is fully implemented.These routes are then called"X-Routes." When office time isreduced by the automated sorting ofletter mail, it will be necessary toreduce the :lumber of routes and addto those that remain.

X-Routes are identified in advance forplanning purposes. However, they arenot abolished and their workdistributed to other routes untildelivery-sequence letter mail reaches acertain, agreed-upon target percentagein the delivery unit.

Because this process is planned jointlyin advance, all employees will knowwhat to expect before the changeshappen-which routes will disappearand how the remaining routes will beconfigured.

The X-Route process offers the partiesseveral advantages:

A joint effort. First, the X-Routeprocess is a joint effort drawing uponthe best talents of all thoseinvolved-letter carriers and managerscommitted to making the Postal Servicea success.

Forward-looking. Second, the X-Routeprocess has all the benefits of strategicplanning. It looks to solve problemsbefore they occur. And it informs allinterested parties about what to expectbefore the changes happen-whichroutes will disappear and how theremaining routes will be realigned.

Locally controlled. X-Route is locallybased, giving local managers and localNALC officials the power to assesstheir own unique circumstances anddesign sensible solutions.

Flexible. The X-Route process has afew basic rules but otherwise it is veryflexible. The local parties can monitortheir progress and alter their plans ascircumstances change.


M-130629

1. Decision on Method, By Installation

•

•

In each separate installation of thePostal Service, a decision must bemade about the way letter carrierroutes will be adjusted toaccommodate automation. There aretwo choices:

A Unilateral method. Managementmay decide to plan unilaterally forautomation and the reconfigurationof letter carrier routes. Theunilateral planning and adjustmentprocess is governed by theMemorandum of Understandingresolving the outstandingHempstead issues, discussed inChapter 3 above.

B. X-Route alternative. The X-Routealternative approach requires jointagreement and continuous efforts byboth parties to discuss, plan,exchange information and ideas, andwork together to make a success ofthe changes that automation willbring.

One or the other. Each installationmust choose one or the otherapproach-elements of the twoapproaches may not be mixed. Andthe decision to use X-Routes is bindingand may not be changed except bymutual consent.

One NALC branch-several postalinstallations. An independent choiceof method will be made at eachinstallation, even where one NALCbranch represents letter carriers atmore than one installation.

Each delivery unit plans and conductsits own X-Route process. Even thoughthe decision whether to use theX-Route process is made by installation, the process is planned and conducted for each individual deliveryunit.

Agreement is binding. An agreementby the local parties to pursue theX-Route process is binding and maynot be changed except by mutualagreement. So it is suggested that theparties reduce the agreement towriting, to prevent any problems thatcould arise where local leaders change.

If no agreement, then unilateralmethod. X-Route is a joint, cooperativeprocess and if no agreement can bereached to pursue it then postalmanagers must follow the unilateralprocess outlined in the Memorandumresolving the Hempstead issues. SeeChapter 3, above.

•30

M-1306


2. Exploring the X-RouteAlternative Together

•

If the local parties decide to explorethe X-Route approach, they should takecertain initial steps:

• Review memorandums. The-partiesshould meet to review theMemorandums on the X-Routealternative, case configuration, DPSwork methods and the resolution ofthe Hempstead issues.

• Share information. Throughout theX-Route process, the Postal

Service is required to shareinformation with the union aboutautomation, such as the time it willarrive and its impact on carrierwork. Information sharing isessential to a joint X-Route process.In their exploratory talks withNALC, local USPS managers mustshare relevant information aboutautomation target dates, deploymentschedules and so forth.

3. X-Route Approach SelectedGetting Started on the Right Foot

•

If the local parties agree to pursue ajoint X-Route process, certain initialsteps will help ensure the processworks successfully. As with anyimportant organizational project,X-Route will need a working structureand some basic procedures to get offthe ground and prosper throughout thetransition to automation.

Select a joint decision-making body.It is strongly recommended that thelocal parties create a joint X-Routecommittee, task force or other body totake responsibility for the process. Thetransition to automation will take timeand may be difficult for both parties.

So the X-Route process needs a solidcore of people committed to making itwork.

Composition of group. Members ofthe joint group should have authorityto make crucial decisions and shouldbe committed to the X-Route processover the long term. The variousmembers should have a mix of skillsand expertise-knowledge of routeexaminations, delivery and customerservice operations, and the NationalAgreement, as well as numerical,analytical and communication skills.Perhaps most important, they shouldhave good negotiating skills-the

•

•

Cnapter 4 - The Future-X-Route Process

ability to build relationships and createsolutions that work for both parties.

The Branch President will designate theNALC members of the group and thePostmaster will designate themanagement members.

Defining the order of business. It isalso recommended that the joint bodyset up regular procedures to guaranteeits continuity and efficient functioning.Regular meetings should be scheduled.Group members should discuss howthe group will operate during itsmeetings-how it will assignresponsibilities, make decisions, takeminutes, communicate with others andso forth. Groups that discuss andresolve these issues explicitly at theoutset are more likely to succeed.

Dispute resolution process-required.The Memorandum requires the localparties, as their first order of

1'01-130631

business, to set up a joint disputeresolution process. They will use thisprocess to resolve problems in theX-Route process as soon as they arise.It is recommended that the joint bodydiscuss and develop this process. XRoute does not become binding until ajoint resolution process has beenagreed upon.

The parties may design the disputeresolution process as they wish, usingany method that works for them. Forinstance, some local joint X-Routecommittees will be able to solveproblems through consensus or votingin a joint committee, or they might aska facilitator for help. Other committeesmay require "harder" processes such asUMPS or even, as a last resort,arbitration. Regardless of the processchosen, it should be quick and finaland help the parties get past theirdifficulties.

4. Review of CurrentRoute Inspection Data

•

After setting up the joint process,the local parties must meet to reviewinformation concerning the adjustmentstatus of carrier routes in the unit.

Current route inspection data isessential. Current route inspectiondata is the starting point for asuccessful X-Route process. If theparties do not have recent inspectioninformation, they should plan toconduct examinations at an appropriate

time before DPS is introduced" in theunit. Current inspection data will beneeded far enough in advance of thetime DPS is introduced to permit theparties to make an estimate of the DPSimpact on the unit, make a plan forroute realignment, and notify mailersof scheme changes in advance of theplanned realignment.

To proceed with these plans the partieswill need current route inspection

•32

data---either recent data which theybelieve reasonably reflects the currentsituation, or new data from conductingnew route inspections. The partiesshould arrive at agreed-upon routeevaluations.

M-1306


'Where this material refers to the time deliverypoint sequencing lOPS) is introduced, this refersto the time when an agreed-upon percentage ofletter mail is being received in the deliverypoint sequence order so as to effect adjustments.

5. Estimating DPS Impacton the Delivery Unit

•

•

Next, starting with the current routeinspection data, the parties mustestimate the impact of DPS on thedelivery unit.

Determine DPS target percentage.First, management must determine inadvance a final target DPS percentagefor letter mail in the unit. Thepercentage must be between 70 and 85percent.

Target =percent DPS after fullimplementation. The final targetpercentage represents an estimatedgoal for the proportion of letter mailthat will be received by lettercarriers in walk sequence-after DPStechnology is fully implemented forthe unit.** The percentage of lettermail sorted into walk sequence insome units will begin at lowerpercentages and then rise as mailersbarcode more mail, as the PostalService deploys new addressreading and barcoding machines,and as remote bar code sorting isinitiated.

Choose target percentage carefully.In choosing this final DPS targetpercentage, Postal Service managersmust keep in mind that theabolishment of X-Routes and therealignment of surviving routes willnot occur until the target percentageis reached in the unit. So managerswill have to balance two goals-thegoal of reaching the highest possibletarget percentage for walk sequencemail, and the goal of realizing theDPS efficiency gains by realigningcarrier routes. Establishing too higha target percentage could delaysubstantially the realignment ofroutes to realize efficiency gains.Establishing too Iowa targetpercentage may necessitateadditional adjustments if a higherpercentage is achieved.

Use established methodology to makeimpact estimate. In the MemorandumresolVing the Hempstead issues, theparties established a methodology forcalculating the estimated impact ofDPS on each delivery unit. The localparties should "plug in" the DPS target

•

•


percentage and current routeinspection data, and use themethodology to calculate the impact.The "impact" is the number of lettercarrier hours that will be eliminatedwhen the DPS target percentage isreached.

Target routes for elimination. Oncethe impact on the unit is calculated, thelocal parties will decide jointly howmany full-time and/or auxiliary routeswill be eliminated from the unit whenthe DPS target percentage is reached.This number of routes is reached bydividing the total daily hours impacton the unit by eight (8).

""Full DPS implementation" is when the finaltarget percentage has been achieved. Ingeneral, it involves the full deployment of

M-1306

33

current address reading, bar coding, andsorting technologies, resulting in the greatmajority of letter mail being received by lettercarriers in delivery point sequence. Usuallythis will entail the following: (1) Mailers willrespond to postage discounts by increasing theproportion of their mail that is pre-barcodedwith the l1-<ligit zip code, which enablessortation to the individual address. (The hopeis that the pre-barcoded percentage will soonreach 40 percent.) (2) Multi-line addressreading machines and l1-<ligit bar codingmachines will be fully deployed in USPS mailprocessing facilities. (3) Remote bar codingsites will be set up in which employees readaddresses on mail that cannot be read bymachines; other machines will then spray onthe appropriate ll-<ligit bar code. (4) Deliverypoint bar code (DPBC) sorting machines willbe delivered or upgraded to perform deliverypoint sequencing, reading the l1-<ligit barcodes and sorting each carrier route's lettermail into walk sequence. These events maynot occur in any particular order, of course,and the deployment of automation will vary indifferent post offices.

6. Drawing NewX-Route Maps of the Unit

•

Next the parties must work togetherto accomplish the most difficult job inthe X-route process-drawing a newmap of the zone showing how someroutes will be abolished and howothers will be realigned for automation.

X-Routes identified. The new routemap must identify X-Routes-thoseroutes marked for abolishment afterfull delivery point sequencing isachieved.

Realignment of surviving routes. Inmost units the routes that willsurvive-the "non-X-Routes"-willhave to be realigned to create the newX-Route map of the unit.

Re-drawn routes will remain at 8hours. The re-drawn routes-bothX-Routes and surviving routes-will be8-hour routes with no assumed orprojected efficiency gains built in.

•34

Partition X-Routes for later transfer.In addition, the new map of the unitmust partition the identified X-Routes,to indicate which surviving route willeventually absorb which X-Routeterritory.

Certain routes may be exempted fromX-Route realignment. The parties maydecide jointly that, due to localcircumstances such as geography,certain routes should be excluded fromchanges under the X-Route process.

Advance knowledge of X-Route statusand realignments. All carriers in aunit will know in advance which

M-1306


routes are X-Routes and the estimateddate for their elimination. In addition,carriers on surviving assignments willknow how their own routes may berealigned to conform to the new routemaps, and what territory their ownroutes will be absorbing from theX-Routes when automation isimplemented.

Posting and bidding of X-Routes.X-Routes will be posted for bid whenvacant, as long as they remain full-timeassignments (see 10, Making InterimAdjustments, below). The bid noticewill state the anticipated date ofelimination.

• 7. Deciding Jointly Whether to RealignRoutes Immediately to New RouteMap, or Later when the TargetPercentage is Reached

•

Once the new route map is drawn,the parties must decide when thecurrent route structure will berealigned to fit the new routeboundaries.

Basis for decision-how seriouslyroutes are out of adjustment. Todecide when to realign routes to thenew map, the parties should reviewthe unit's current route inspection data.

If seriously out of adjustmentrealign immediately. If the routescurrently are seriously out of

adjustment, then the unit should moveimmediately to realign routes to fit thenew X-Route map. This will accomplish two things: (a) adjust the routes to8 hours; and (b) get the route alignments ready for the eventual abolishment of X-Routes and their absorptionby surviving routes.

Two steps to final routeconfiguration. Where the routesneed to be adjusted and realignedimmediately to the new map, thiswill be the first of two major routerealignment steps taken toward the

•

•

•

Chapter 4 - The Fu\ure-X-Route Process

final route configuration. In thesecond step, triggered by the DPStarget percentage being reached, theX-Routes will be abolished and thesurviving routes will absorb theirterritory.

If not seriously out of adjustmentparties may decide to delay realignment until the target DPS percentageis reached and X-Routes areabolished. If the routes currently arenot seriously out of adjustment, thenthe parties may decide jointly to delaythe realignment to the new X-Routemap until the target DPS percentage isreached. Non-territorial adjustmentsrouter assistance, segmentation orpermanent handoffs as outlined in theM-39 Handbook Section 243.21b- willbe used to accommodate routes thatare longer or shorter than 8 hours.

X-Routes will still be designated andthe carriers holding those assignmentswill be informed of elimination dates.Surviving routes will also be designated and the carriers holding thoseassignments will learn how their routeswill be realigned after the DPS targetpercentage is reached.

8. DPS ActivationAt some point in time DPS will be

activated in the unit: The deliverypoint bar code sorters will be activated

M-1306

35

One step to final routeconfiguration. Where therealignment of routes to the newmap is delayed, there will be onlyone major route realignment in thetransition to the final routeconfiguration. That singlerealignment step will occur whenthe final target DPS percentage isreached: X-Routes will be abolishedand the surviving routes will bothabsorb the X-Route territory and berealigned to fit the new routemaps-all at the same time.

Realigned route-election to vacateand become unassigned. When routesare realigned to conform to the newunit route map, a regular carrier whosestreet territory is changed may elect, ona one-time basis, to vacate his or herroute and become an unassignedregular. This will not trigger theprovisions of Article 41.3.0 (whichcouId otherwise require placing allroutes up for bid). Instead, the vacatedposition will be posted and filled inaccordance with the usual proceduresset forth in Article 41.1.

and begin sorting barcoded letter mailinto DPS order. The local parties willbe well-prepared for this occurrence.

•36

M-1306


9. When DPS Target is Reached,X-Routes are Abolished

•

•

X-Routes are abolished andabsorbed by the surviving routes whenthe final target DPS percentage isreached. The local parties' jointplanning will take into account thetiming of this event. The nationalparties have agreed that managementmust show it has achieved the targetpercentage for a minimum of twoconsecutive weeks.

Where the final target percentage willbe reached immediately. In someunits the mail will be ready for fullyimplemented delivery point sequencingwhen the DPS sorting machines firstbegin operating. So the final DPStarget percentage will be reached assoon as the machines are activated.

X-Route abolishment at the sametime. Where DPS activation andreaching the final target percentageoccur simultaneously, the abolishmentof X-Routes and their absorption bysurviving routes will also take place atthat time. The local parties will planfor this occurrence and know inadvance if these changes can beexpected to occur together.

If the routes have already beenrealigned to fit the new X-Routemap, the only change will be theelimination of the X-Routes andtheir absorption by surviving routes.

If the routes have not yet beenrealigned, then the realignment andabolishment of X-Routes will occurat once. In this case the survivingroutes will both absorb the X-Routesand also be realigned at the sametime to the re-drawn route map ofthe unit.

Full-time carrier on abolished X-Routebecomes unassigned. When anX-Route is abolished the full-timecarrier assigned to it will become anunassigned regular. However, noimplementation of Article 41.3.0 willoccur. The carrier then has 30 days touse his or her seniority to bid on anyvacancy within his or her bidding area.This includes residual vacancies andpositions withheld for excessing.(Note: For this purpose only, anaSSignment is considered "vacant" if itis being worked as a hold-down, butotherwise no regular carrier hassuccessfully bid on and now holds theassignment.) The parties may chooseto limit such a bid posting tounassigned carriers displaced by theabolishment of X-Routes, or they mayuse some other, mutually agreed-uponprocess.


10. Making Interim Adjustmentsin Limited Circumstances

M-130637

•

•

In some offices the final DPS targetpercentage will not be reached as soonas the DPS machines are activated.This may occur because addressreading and ll-digit bar codingmachines have not yet been deployedat mail processing centers, or becauseremote bar code sorting of nonmachinable mail has not yet beenimplemented in the area. In thesecases there may be a long waitperhaps more than a year after DPSactivation-for the new machines orprocesses to come on-line and for theDPS percentage to reach the finaltarget.

Where this is expected to happen thelocal parties may decide jointly tomake interim adjustments of lettercarrier routes, before the final DPStarget percentage is reached. Such adecision will be based on currentautomation levels and anticipateddeployment of further automation.

Cautious use of interim adjustments.Interim adjustments are disruptive topostal operations, to customers and toletter carriers. The parties shouldavoid making more than one interimadjustment, and should make such anadjustment only after substantialprogress has been made towardreaching the final DPS target percentage. It is probably best to reach atleast 50 percent DPS before implementing any interim adjustment.

Advance planning must include anyinterim adjustment. Where the partiesanticipate that an interim adjustmentwill be needed, they should make thatadjustment and its "trigger percentage"part of their joint plans. The new routemaps should also be drawn to showwhat territory will be distributed fromX-Routes to surviving routes in theinterim adjustment, and what territorywill remain in the X-Routes until theirabolishment.

Example. In planning for an interimadjustment the parties mightestimate, for example, that whenDPS is first activated the DPSpercentage will be 40 percent. Theymay further anticipate that theintroduction of new multi-lineaddress reading machines 16 monthslater will increase the DPSpercentage to 60 percent.

The parties could plan to "trigger"an interim adjustment at the 60percent DPS level. The territory tobe interim-transferred fromX-Routes to surviving routes wouldbe identified in advance. Theymight anticipate further that remotebar code sorting will begin afteranother year. They could plan forDPS to reach the final targetpercentage at that time, and toabolish X-Routes then and distributetheir work to surviving routes.

•

•

•

Partial absorption of X-Routes. In aninterim adjustment, parts of X-Routes(but not all) are distributed tosurviving routes. The surviving routestake on the new territory and areadjusted to 8 hours based on preplanned carrier hour impact estimates.The impact estimates will have beenmade in advance of DPS introduction,using the established methodology.

Timing of general route realignment.Where the unit's routes have alreadybeen realigned to fit the new X-Routemap, the interim adjustment willinvolve only the transfer of someterritory, but not all, from X-Routes tosurviving routes. Where the routeshave not yet been realigned to the newmap, the interim adjustment willtrigger both the general routerealignment and the partial absorptionof X-Routes.

Handling the remaining X-Routeassignments. After an interimadjustment the X-Routes will be lessthan 8 hours. The parties will decidejointly how to deal with theseassignments.

Combining to form maximum fulltime assigmnents. First the partieswill attempt to combine such routesefficiently to provide the maximumpossible number of full-timeassignments.

14-1306


Auxiliary or split assigmnentswhere necessary. Where full-timeassignments cannot be efficientlycreated from the X-Routes, theparties may then decide jointly toform auxiliary assignments and/orto split the remaining hours anddistribute them to the survivingroutes. Where the latter method isused, the surviving routes may be"built up" to no more than 8 hoursand 20 minutes.

Not all surviving routes ''builtup"-priority in distribution. If theremaining X-Route work is splitamong surviving routes, and not allsurviving routes will be "built up"as a result, then where efficiency canbe maintained routes will beselected for "build-up" in thefollowing order:

1) By seniority, routes whoseregular carriers are on the workassignment list;

2) By seniority, routes whoseregular carriers are on theovertime desired list; and

3) Lastly, by inverse seniority,carriers not on any overtime list.


11. Revisiting Afterthe Route Realignment

M-1306

39

•

After X-Routes are abolished andthe surviving routes are realigned toabsorb them, the parties must workjointly to monitor and fine-tune theresults. The M-39 will continue torequire routes to be adjusted to asnearly eight hours as possible.

The parties should plan in advance torevisit the route adjustments andcorrect them where necessary. This

review should occur within 60 daysafter the route realignment.

Both USPS and NALC understand thateven the best estimates cannot predictthe future with precision. Planning forthe future is difficult, and unforeseenand changing circumstances willrequire us to be flexible. The partiesbelieve that through joint efforts wecan solve problems as they occur andwork steadily toward the future.

Note on Transitional Employees

•

In a unit adjusting routes under theX-Route process, transitional employeeswill be used in accordance with therelevant national Interest Arbitration

Award and any subsequentagreement(s) between the PostalService and NALe.

Comparison of Two ApproachesUnilateral and X-Route

•40

M-1306


A. Unilateral Adjustments by Management

l. Regular count and inspection 5. Management determines whichoccurs with all applicable sections assignments will not surviveof the M-39 adhered to. implementation of delivery point

sequencing and how the work2. Management makes evaluations in formerly on those assignments will

accordance with existing be allocated to routes that willhandbooks and manuals. survive automation.

3. Current adjustments are 6. When the automation is on lineimplemented to get routes as near and operative those adjustmentsto eight hours as possible. These will be implemented if within theadjustments must take the form of 18 month window and if the local

• non-territorial, non-scheme union has Article 41.3.0 in its LMUadjustments if automation will those provisions will apply. If theoccur within 6 months. No adjustments are outside the 18adjustments for future events may month window and the partiesoccur at this time. have not otherwise agreed, then a

new count and inspection must4. Management may plan for future occur.

adjustments for delivery pointsequencing using the methodology 7. Within 60 days of the implemen-agreed to in Memorandum if the tation of the adjustments basedimplementation of those upon estimated impact fromadjustments will occur within 18 automation, a review of all routesmonths of this inspection. will occur to insure that thoseManagement will supply to the assignments are as near to eightlocal union documentation to hours as possible.support the deployment ofequipment where they intend toplan this type of adjustment.

•


B. Adjustments through Joint X...Route Process

M-13 06

41

•

1. Management meets with the local 7. The parties jointly determine whatunion to review the provisions of realignment of routes is necessarythis agreement. If current route and when that realignment willinspection data does not exist, occur.plans should be made to conduct aregular count and inspection. 8. Any regular carrier whose street

territory is changed from this2. Management will share with the realignment will have a one-time

union their deployment plans and right to vacate his/her assignmentthe projected impact they will have and will become an unassignedon delivery units. regular. No Article 41.3.0 will

apply.3. If agreement is reached to enter

into this process, then a joint 9. Adjustment strategies will beresolution process must be jointly determined. Decisions suchdeveloped by the parties. as whether or not interim

adjustments will be necessary are4. The results of the inspection are jointly decided.

jointly reviewed and evaluationsare agreed upon. 10 Where interim adjustment

strategies are employed the parties5. Management must develop a final will jointly determine how to

targeted DPS percentage which is distribute the work on X-Routesthen used in methodology process after each interim adjustment.to estimate impact on routes withinthat unit. 11. X-Routes will be posted when

vacant along with the expected6. The parties will jointly determine date of elimination. Carriers on

the number and identity of X-Routes when they are abolishedX-Routes for the unit. will become unassigned regulars

and will be eligible to bid anyvacant duty assignment withintheir bidding area. However, noimplementation of Article 41.3.0will occur.

•

•

•

42M-1306


•Chapter 5 - Delivery Point Sequencing Work Methods

Chapter 5

Delivery PointSequencing

Work Methods

~1-1306

43

•

•

The introduction of delivery point sequencing (DPS) will necessitatesome changes in the way letter carriers handle the mail. NALC and the PostalService have anticipated this change and have given the local parties the jointresponsibility to choose between two options for handling the mail in anautomated environment. The Memorandum on this subject is reprinted asAppendix E to this booklet.


•44

M-1306

Chapter 5 - Delivery Point Sequencing Work Methods



NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LEITER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO

•

•

The U.S. Postal Service and theNational Association of Letter Carriers,AFL-CIO, recognize the importance ofthe work methods that will be used in adelivery point sequence environment.The parties also realize the substantialcontribution that letter carriers canmake in the development of these workmethods. Towards facilitating thatinvolvement, the following principleshave been agreed to by the parties atthe national level:

1. The following are the approved workmethods:

• Case residual letters inthe same separations withvertically cased flat mail,pull down and carry asone bundle.

• Case residual letter mailseparately into deliverysequence order, pull downand carry as a composite(third) bundle.

Two DPS Work Methods Authorized

• The problem-DPS and residualletter mail. When delivery pointsequencing is implemented, someletter mail will be sequenced bymachines and other, residual letterswill require casing. Letter carrierswill have to adopt work methods tohandle the residual letters.

• The solution-two authorized workmethods. The parties have authorized two work methods to resolvethis problem:

A. Casing residual letters with theflats and carrying the combinedflats/residual mail as a singlebundle and carrying the DPSletters as a second bundle.

B. Casing and pulling downresidual letter mail separately,and carrying it separately as athird bundle.

Note:· These methods apply regardlessof the case configuration selected; seeChapter 1, above.


•

•

•

2. As implementation of the deliverypoint bar coding impacts a deliveryunit, local parties will select the mostefficient work method possible fromthe delivery point sequence workmethods authorized in number 1above. If the local parties cannotagree on the most efficient workmethod, the issue will be presentedto the parties at the Headquarterslevel to determine the most efficientwork method.

3. Local parties will also be encouragedto develop efficient new workmethods and to share their ideaswith the parties at the national levelfor joint review and evaluation. Thepurpose of this joint review andevaluation will be to determine theefficiency of the local method. Afterthe review and evaluation of the newwork method and if the methodproves to be efficient, it will beadded to Item 1 above.

M-1306

45

Joint Decision Re: Most EfficientMethod

• Joint selection of one method.When DPS comes, the memoranduminstructs the local parties to make ajoint decision to adopt the moreefficient of the two work methods.The decision is up to local managersand union representatives, who willselect the best method for each routein a delivery unit.

For instance, the parties may agreethat only two bundles should beused on park and loop routes, andthat a third bundle is more efficientfor motorized curbside delivery. Inmaking their choices the partiesshould take into account the impacton street time as well as office time,and the need for additional spaceand casing equipment.

• No local agreement - National jointresolution. If the local partiescannot agree the matter isforwarded the parties at the nationallevel for a joint resolution.

Development of More Efficient WorkMethods Encouraged; NationalReview & Evaluation Process

• Search for more efficient workmethods. Allows the parties to lookjointly for more efficient workmethods, in addition to A and Babove.

• Local parties may submit toNationallevel. If the local partiesagree on a more efficient method

•46

101-1306


they may forward their proposal toheadquarters for joint review andevaluation.

• If approved, added to list. Ifapproved, the method will be addedto the list of authorized methodsavailable to the local parties.

•

•

4. The parties agree that the workmethod in place at the delivery unitwill be utilized in the day-to-daymanagement of letter carrier routesand in the procedures for inspection,evaluation and adjustment of routes.

5. The parties at the national level willcontinually review alternativemethods in an effort to improveefficiency. Both parties agree thatthe process of continual joint reviewof new and more efficient workmethods will result in the continuedupgrading at the local delivery unitof the most efficient work method.

Same Work Method Authorized forInspections, Evaluations andAdjustments

Once the parties have selected the mostefficient DPS work method, thatmethod will be used by carriers duringroute examinations and will be used inday-to-day delivery operations.

Continual Joint National Review ofNew and More Efficient WorkMethods

The National parties have agreed towork together in a continuous searchfor work methods that will improvedelivery unit efficiency.

•Chapter 6 - Transitional Employees

M-1306

47

Chapter 6

Transitional EmployeesThe Memorandum on Transitional Employees resolves certain disputes

that have arisen over the interpretation of Arbitrator Mittenthal's January 16,1992 arbitration award on Transitional Employees (TE Award). This chapterdescribes the Memorandum's clarifications and agreements. The Memorandum is reprinted as Appendix F to this booklet.

• The parties have also agreed to write a training booklet outlining theirjoint understanding of how and when transitional letter carriers may beutilized by the Postal Service. The booklet will set forth in greater detail therules governing the hiring and use of transitional employees.


•_c_

•M-1306

Chapter 6 - Transitional Employees



NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL·CIO

•

•

It appears that, due to some differencesin interpretation, there has been somelack of agreement between the partieslocally on application of the January 16,1992, Mittenthal Award on transitionalemployees (TE) in the Letter CarrierCraft. NALC and USPS have beenmeeting at the national level to resolvethose differences and, with theexception of the PTF conversion issuethat is presently awaiting nationalarbitration, we have reached accordregarding TE hire and utilization.

We anticipate that a joint TE bookletwill be made available for reference inthe next several weeks. In themeantime, the following information willserve to highlight areas of apparentdisparity in interpretation where mutualunderstanding has now been reached.

Resolution of TE Issues

The parties at the national level havediscussed issues concerning the TEAward and decided to resolve certainmatters as follows:

• Memorandum resolves disputes.First, this memorandum resolvescertain disputes over application ofthe award; see the Memorandumlanguage and explanation below.

• Joint training booklet. In addition,the parties are producing a jointtraining booklet on transi tionalemployees that will explain theirjoint intent regarding implementation of TE Award and thisMemorandum. The booklet willexplain in step-by-step format whatcontractual rights and benefits applyto TEs, when TEs may be hired andutilized by the Postal Service, andwhat limits have been placed on theuse of TEs.

•

•

•


Completion of the DSSA will beaccomplished in accordance withexisting instructions. It is in our jointinterest to establish a credible baselinefrom which realistic projections can bemade. Thus, every effort will be madeto avoid any inflation of baseline hoursor the baseline/ projection difference. Inthat regard, the parties agree that line27 of the OSSA represents theaverage-weekly difference between theauthorized hours (shown on line 26).and the actual weekly hours being usedby the unit, expressed as a percentageof authorized hours (line 26).

M-1306

49

Realistic Baseline Work Hours

The TE Award requires the calculationof a Baseline DSSA showing currentcarrier work hours required in a workunit, and a Projection DSSA estimatingthe carrier work hours that will berequired after automation isimplemented. The difference betweenthese two figures represents the carrierwork hour reduction that will occur bythe end of the transition period. Thesame number represents the maximumTE hours that may be used in thedelivery unit to cover positions heldpending reversion, or due to certainopting or PTF attrition.

The Memorandum establishes twoagreements about the calculation of theBaseline and Projection DSSA.

• Credible baseline data. First, theparties have agreed to avoidinflating the ceiling on TE hoursestablished by the DSSA analysis.

• Line 27 of DSSA-actual workhours. Second, the parties agreethat actual average work hours inthe work unit, rather thanauthorized hours, will be used tocalculate the Baseline DSSA. Thisagreement facilitates theestablishment of credible, actualbaseline hours figures. By startingwith a credible baseline, the partiescan then make realistic projectionsof how carrier hours will change inthe future.

•

•

•

50

OSSA-Union Review. Managementwill make available to the local union allrelevant information on whichcalculations are based. Unionrepresentatives will be allowedreasonable time to review managementcalculations on OSSAs. Our intent is toresolve OSSA and TE issues viainformation sharing and discussionrather than conflict and confrontation.

TE Hire versus Baseline OSSA-Forpurposes of implementing Parts 1c (1)(4) of the Award, TEs may be hiredonly after a unit's baseline andprojection OSSAs have been completedand the difference between the two hasestablished a ceiling for TE hours. If,at that point, existing staffing isinsufficient to meet the weeklyrequirements demonstrated by thebaseline OSSA, TEs may be employedwithout current attrition as aprerequisite. However, those TE hourswill be offset against the establishedceiling of hours. The parties' agree thatTEs may be used to cover only thoseresidual vacancies withheld pursuant toArticle 12 since September 3, 1991.

M-1306


Information Sharing

The national parties have decided toact jointly in the implementation of theTE Award and this Memorandum. Aswith the other September, 1992memorandums, here again the nationalUSPS and NALC strongly urge thelocal parties to use joint andcooperative efforts to solve problemsand plan for the future.

Information sharing is an essentialelement of a joint endeavor, and thislanguage requires local managers toprovide local NALC representatives allrelevant information on which theOSSA calculations are based, and togive the union reasonable time toreview the calculations and discussthem with postal managers. In turn,union representatives are expected tobe reasonable in their requests forinformation and time.

Clarification of Rules on TE Hiringand Utilization

This language addresses threeimportant rules concerning TEs:

A. Preconditions to TE HiringReaffirmed

The Memorandum reaffirms that aBaseline OSSA and Projection OSSAmust be completed, and a TE hoursceiling established based on thedifference between the OSSAs, beforeany TEs may be used to coverassignments held pending reversion ordue to opting or PTF attrition.

--------------------------------------------

•

•

•


M-1306

51

B. Additional TE Hiring ''Trigger'':Baseline versus Existing Staffing

Sections l.c(l)-(4) of the TE Awardprovide certain "triggers" or eventswhich must occur to give the PostalService the right to hire or use TEhours. The TE Award sets forth threesuch "triggering" events:

1. Held pending reversion. A residualvacancy is held pending reversionslated for later abolishment due toautomation.

2. Opting on assignment heldpending reversion. A carrier optson a position that has been heldpending reversion (but see "NoPyramiding," below).

3. PTF attrition. A part-time flexiblecarrier leaves the employ of USPS.

The Memorandum language adds afourth "trigger":

4. Insufficient existing staffing.When the Baseline OSSA iscompleted, this language permitslocal managers to compare theactual carrier staffing at the time tothe current staffing needs asindicated by the OSSA. TE hoursmay be utilized immediately tomake up the difference. Such TEhours are limited, along with thosejustified by the other three triggers,by the maximum hours ceiling equalto the difference in the OSSAs.

•

•

•

52

TE Hire versus Projected AttrltlonWhere it is anticipated that attrition willsatisfy the projected difference instaffing for automation, TEs will beemployed to backfill for attrition onlyafter the unit or installation has enteredthe transition period (defined as thatlength of time needed for attrition tofulfill staffing reduction requirements).In such circumstances, attrition prior tothe transition period will be fulfilled bycareer employees, with the exception ofresidual vacancies withheld forexcessing (another craft or installation).

1-1-1306


C. TE Use to Cover AssignmentsWithheld For Excessing

The TE award also permits USPS touse TE hours to cover vacancieswithheld for excessing. (These TEhours are not limited by the ceilingestablished by the DSSA difference.)The Memorandum provides that thePostal Service may use TEs to coveronly those residual vacancies withheldfor excessing since September 3, 1991.

TE Hiring for Four Triggers-OnlyAfter Entering Transition Period

In some units, projected letter carrierattrition will more than accomplish thenecessary shrinkage in carrier hoursprojected by the DSSA analysis. Inthat case career employees must beused to fill vacancies until theprojected shrinkage in hours and theremaining projected attrition are equal(unless there are vacancies withheld forexcessing).

The purpose of this section is to definethe length of time for the transitionperiod when TEs in a delivery unit canbe utilized. Management mustdetermine how many letter carrierwork hours will need to be reduced asa result of the implementation ofautomation. Once the work hourreduction is determined, managementmust look at the anticipated attritionfor the installation and determine theperiod of time that it will take toaccomplish this reduction throughattrition. This will define thebeginning and ending dates of thetransition period. The partiesrecognize that the estimation ofattrition is a projection based on

•

•

•


TE Use to Cover Opting-WhetherTEs are hired as soon as vacanciesoccur or after opting takes place, it isagreed that there will be no pyramidingof any defined TE hire opportunity,

Held Pending Reversion-Thesepositions must be posted. However, theresidual vacancy that results from suchposting will then be considered theheld-pending-reversion vacancy, Thisvacancy will then be made available foropting as outlined in the award, When

M-130653

history and future retirements. Theunderlying principle is that there needsto be a reasonable approach toestimating the impact of automationand the length of time for thetransition period.

TEs usage to cover positions withheldfor excessing are not limited by theDSSA analysis or the triggering events,so the transition period restriction doesnot apply.

No Pyramiding

Section l.c(3) of the TE Award permitsthe Postal Service to use TE hours:"[t]o cover the vacancy created by apart-time flexible, reserve orunassigned letter carrier opting for theheld pending reversion assignment orthe subsequent vacancy created bymultiple opts,"

Local managers may use an additional40 TE hours after a residual vacancy isheld pending reversion (Trigger No.1).However, the TE Award does notpermit any additional TE use whenanother carrier opts on the assignmentheld pending reversion, That wouldbe "pyramiding" or double-countingthe TE entitlement.

Assignments Held PendingReversion-Rules for Filling Positions

After a vacancy occurs and is identifiedas "held pending reversion"-slated forlater abolishment due to automationthe assignment must then be posted for

•

•

•

54

the original held-pending-reversionposition is actually reverted. the carrierassigned to that position becomes anunassigned regular and is eligible to bidfor any vacant duty assignment withinhis bid area.

M-1306


bid. The bid posting will indicate thatthe assignment is being held pendingreversion. If a carrier bids on theassignment, the resulting residualvacancy is available for opting or, if nocarrier opts on it, for filling by a TE(see "triggering event" No.2, above).

When assignment is abolished. Whenthe assignment held pending reversionis eventually abolished, what happensnext depends on whether the LocalMemorandum of Understandingcontains Article 41.3.0. If not, thecarrier assigned to the abolishedposition becomes an unassignedregular.

If 41.3.0 does apply, there are twopossibilities.

1. Held by the junior regular. If theabolished assignment is occupied bythe junior regular, he or shebecomes an unassigned regular.

2. Held by other than the juniorregular. Where a regular other thanthe junior one is occupying theassignment when it is abolished,then all assignments held by morejunior carriers are posted for bid, asrequired by Article 41.3.0.

Unassigned regular rights. When acarrier becomes an unassigned regularas a result of these changes, the carrieris eligible to bid on any assignmentwithin his or her bidding areaincluding residual vacancies, otherpositions held pending reversion andpositions withheld for excessing.

•

•

•


Workhour Guarantees-While werecognize that TE scheduling is subjectto a four-hour guarantee, localmanagement has the responsibility toafford the PTF priority in schedulingworkhours in accordance with theMittenthal interest arbitration award.

TE Hire versus Excessing

A full-time letter carrier may not beexcessed and the resulting vacancyfilled by a TE, except wheremanagement can demonstrate that, asa result of legitimate operationalchanges, there is insufficient work tocontinue to support a full-time position.For example, management may notabolish a full-time router position andexcess the full-time letter carrier andhire or assign one or more TEs toperform the work of the abolishedposition, unless management candemonstrate that the work cannot beperformed on a full-time basis incompliance with the requirements of theNational Agreement.

Disputes concerning the above, ifunresolved in the grievance procedure,shall be placed at the head of theregional (other than removal) arbitrationdocket.

M-1306

55

PTF Scheduling Priority

This language reaffirms that part-timeflexible letter carriers will have firstpriority for work scheduling overtransitional employees. Of course,once TEs are called in their 4-hourwork hour guarantee must be honored.

No Excessing Permitted to HireTransitional Employees

The TE Award was never intended topermit the Postal Service to employTEs to displace career employees whoare working full-time assignments.This language reaffirms that excessingmay be initiated only when a full-timeposition can no longer be maintaineddue to legitimate operational changes.Only where that is demonstrated maymanagement excess a letter carrier andthen use a TE to perform part of theexcessed carrier's work.

• Priority arbitration scheduling.Disputes over this matter will begiven a high priority in regionalarbitration scheduling; only removalcases will have a higher priority.

•

•

•

56

The foregoing matters have beenagreed to and will be elaborated on inthe joint booklet. However, the intent ofthis memorandum is to clarify someareas of potential disagreement, toavoid grievances and to jointly providean expeditious way to achieve theservice improvements and savings thatthe TE award makes possible.

M-1306


Memorandum Clarifies Rules,States Joint Intent

This Memorandum is intended toprevent disagreements concerning therules governing TEs, and help the localparties carry out the purposes of theTE Award.

•Appendices

Appendices,

101-1306

57

The six September, 1992 Memorandums are reprinted as separateappendices below. Appendices A-F are ordered to correspond with Chapters1-6, as follows.

•

•

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F







•

•

58

M-1306

Appendix A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBETWEEN TBE


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS,AFL-CIO

For the purpose of conducting mail counts and routeinspections on traditional casing equipment, letter size isdefined as mail that can be cased into the letterseparations of a standard six-shelf case without folding orbending (approximately six inches in height). Letter sizedoes not include newspapers, rolls, small parcels, flats,magazines, or catalogs under two pounds, even though theseitems may be cased into the letter separations of astandard case without folding or bending.

When mail counts and route inspections are conducted in aunit where letter mail is cased into four- and/orfive-shelf case configurations that have been establishedas a result of any joint agreement, the existing definitionof letter-sized mail will not change; the 18 and 8 standardremains applicable. under these conditions, local management will meet with the local union prior to the dry runtraining to determine an efficient means to verify mail ofquestionable size during the week of count and inspection,e.g., a measuring strip on each case or use of a templateas a reference point.

The acceptance by the parties of this approach to lettersize definition and case configuration is without prejudiceto the parties' rights under Article 34 of the NationalAgreement, and shall not be cited by either party in thegrievance or arbitration procedure or any other forum whichdoes not pertain to the implementation of this agreement.

•

S~_·_--Assistant Postmaster GeneralLabor Relations Department

Date :_:...I-~j~'I4~Ac..:p_%- _

c.CU, t:l!.~h.dV~ncent R. Sombto:lOPresidentNational Association of

Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO

Date: M';' 2-

•

•

•

M-1306

Appendix B

MEMORANDUM FOR POSTMASTERS, CITY DELIVERY OFFICESLOCAL PRESIDENTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO

SUBJECT: Joint Agreements

The NALC and USPS recognize that our continued existence asa viable organization is heavily dependent upon our abilityto meet our customers' needs while empowering employees tolevels not previously envisioned.

As many of you are aware, we have strived at the Nationallevel to obtain an agreement on the implementation ofautomation of letter mail on carrier routes. We agreedthen, and we agree now, on three basic principles:

Provide the best service to postal customers(mailers and recipients).

Minimize impact on letter carrier craft employees.

Create an opportunity for increased efficiency.

Our mutual hope is that the following agreements willprovide a basis for trust and cooperativeness, and that theywill form a basis on which to satisfy our customers' needs.While each agreement may not accomplish all that each partymay desire, collectively they will form the basis for apositive working relationship of mutual trust and respect,and the foundation for continued empowerment of allemployees •

59

•

•

•

60

M-1306

Appendix B

-2-

Case Configuration/Letter-Sized Mail

This agreement provides for a standard definition of lettersized mail and provides guidelines for conducting routeinspections when letter mail is cased into four- and fiveshelf case configurations that have been established as aresult of a joint agreement.

Transitional Employees--Issue Resolutions

Provides information on the transitional employee andhighlights areas of apparent disparity of interpretationwhere mutual understanding has now been reached. Further,this agreement provides that a joint booklet on thetransitional employee will follow.

X-Route Alternative

An optional alternative joint process is provided forpreparing installations for the future automated letter mailenvironment. This agreement has many unique features andshould be reviewed in detail before deciding itsapplicabili ty.

Delivery Point Barcoding Work Methods

This agreement recognizes the substantial contributions thatcity letter carriers can make in the development of new workmethods. It provides a five-step process that ensures areview of alternative methods and continued upgrading ofwork methods as the process evolves.

Route Adjustments--The Future

The parties have fashioned an agreement that provides clearguidance on procedures to be followed when preparing futureroute adjustments for letter mail automation in deliveryunits not selecting the X-route alternative.

Hempstead Resolution--The Past

We are remanding all pending grievances on route adjustmentsto the local parties for resolution. The parties will beguided by the principles of the above-cited agreements andmust take into consideration the following factors.

•

•

M-1306

Appendix B

-3-

Was there a current event; that is, were the routesout of adjustment?

How far in advance was the future event that wasused to adjust the route? The parties have made nodetermination as to the appropriate time period.

What was the projected timir.g of the upcoming event?

What was the basis for determining the effect of thefuture event?

How certain is that future event?

As you review each case, you will find that either:

Management preplanned prope~ly and the currentstructure is within the purview of this agreement;therefore, the current structure is valid;

orManagement preplanned inappropriately or time frameshave changed, negating the validity of theadjustment.

It is your obligation to make these joint determinations andto decide what remedy to apply and how to fix the problem ifone is discovered. The parties should consider the impactof any decision on our employees who serve our customers andthe impact on the customers which they serve. If theparties cannot resolve these cases, they may be appealed toregional arbitration.

61

1iAssista Pos aster GeneralLabor Relations DepartmentU. S. Postal Service

Attachments

JaeklrL~V1ncent R. Somorotto tfl LPresident //1 ~National Association of Letter ~ JL

Carriers, AFL-CIO

•cc: National Business Agents,

National Association Letter Carriers, AFL-CIOMr. CaraveoMr. GreenArea Office ManagersDistrict ManagersField Division General Managers/PostmastersMSC Managers

•

•

•

62

M-1306

Appendix C



NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERSAFL-CIO

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES LEFT OPEN BYMITTENTHAL AWARD OF JULY 10, 1992

Current Events and Adjustments

A current event is defined as a route or routes which areshown to be out of adjustment by a recent route inspectionand evaluation. All current adjustments to existing routeswill place the route on as near an B-hour daily basis aspossible, in accordance with Handbook M-39.

Adjustments Near Term--Automation

When routes require a current adjustment and Delivery PointSequencing will commence within 6 months, management willadjust the routes using non-territorial, non-scheme changeadjustments by the use of router assistance, segmentation orpermanent handoffs as outlined in the M-39 Handbook Section243.2lb. The 6-month period runs from the first day afterthe week of route inspection.

Future Events and Adjustments--Automation

Management may utilize the results of a recent routeinspection and evaluation to estimate and plan routeadjustments, including realignment of assignments, that willbe required by a future event which is to take place within18 months. Management must provide documentation to thelocal union to support the deployment if they intend to planthe adjustments for a future event. The planned adjustmentsfor future events will not be implemented until automationis on line and operative. Management may implement theplanned adjustments if the actual percentage of DeliveryPoint Sequence (DPS) mail received at the unit is within plusor minus 5 percentage points of the targeted (in Step I)level. Should the actual percentage of DPS mail be outsidethese limits, then management must recalculate the estimatedimpact on carrier routes, based on the actual percentage ofDPS mail being received at the unit. The results of therecent route inspection and evaluation will be used todetermine a new impact and construct a new plan or management

•

•

•

/01-1306

Appendix C

-2-

may wait for the plan levels to be received. The 18-monthperiod runs from the first day after the week ofVrouteinspection. For purposes of this agreement, a future eventis defined as mail being received at a delivery unit in DPSorder.

Within 60 days of implementing the planned adjustments forfuture automated events, the parties will revisit thoseadjustments to ensure that routes are as near to 8 hoursdaily, as possible. Both the planned adjustments and subsequent minor adjustments that may be necessary to ensurecompliance will be based on the most recent route inspectiondata for the route. However, if the future event occursafter the 18-month time limit expires, a new mail count,route inspection and evaluation must occur, unless the localparties agree otherwise.

Methodology

Where the future event is the introduction of Delivery PointBar Coding (DPBC) for existing equipment or equipment thatwill cause a certain percentage of letter mail to be receivedby the unit in DPS, the following methodology will be used toestimate the impact of the event on city delivery routes: --

Step 1. Determine the percentage of letter-sized mailtargeted to be received in DPS order on the datewhen the adjustments will be implemented.

Step 2. Multiply percentage determined in Step 1 by theaverage letter-sized mail received during the weekof count and inspection (from PS Form 1840,Column 1) to determine the number of letters foreach route, targeted to be received in DPS order.

Step 3. Divide letters targeted to be received in DPS order(as determined in Step 2) by 18.

Step 4. Divide letters targeted to be received in DPS order(as determined in Step 2) by 70.

Step 5. Add results of Steps 3 and 4 to determine estimatedimpact.

Step 6. For routes where the carrier was under standard timeduring the week of count and inspection, multiplyresults of Step 5 by percentage of standard officetime used during the week of inspection. The resultis the estimated impact.

63

•

•

64M-1306

Appendix C

-3-

EXAMPLE 1:

80 Percent Target for Letter Mail Carrier at/over*Standard Time Allowance


2,160 divided by 18 = 120 minutes2,160 divided by 70 ~ 31 minutes

151 minutes = estimated impact

Note: If actual performance is over standard timeallowance, the standard casing allowance of 18 piecesper minute is used.

EXAMPLE 2:

80 Percent Target for Letter Mail Carrier used85 Percent of Standard Time Allowance


2,160 divided by 18 ~ 120 minutes2,160 divided by 70 = 31 minutes

151 minutes = estimated impact

(Step 6) 151 x 85 Percent = 128 minutes = estimated impact.

It is mutually agreed that as the parties develop experiencein estimating the impact of future events, adjustments to theabove described methodology may be jointly adopted at thenational level.

Pending Grievances

All pending grievances which involve the adjustment of routesfor future events will be remanded to the local parties forresolution.

• iAssistan Post aster GeneralLabor Relations DepartmentU.S. Postal Service

Date:_......r~'-=-~~rH~kE::...- _~7

~~£~Vincent R. SombrottoPresidentNational Association of


Date: f;!tz/1L

•101-1306

Appendix 0

KE!4OR1iliDu)( OF tnIDBRSTANDINGBETWEBN THB

UNITED STATBS POSTAL SBRVICBAND THB

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION or LETTBR CARRIERS,Afr..-CIO

65

•

•

X-Route AlternativeThe parties have reached agreement on an alternative RouteAdjustment strategy - X-Route. The decision to use theX-Route Concept is made on an installation wide basis, eventhough inspections and planning for individual units/zonesmay not occur at the same tUae. In units with more than onedelivery unit/zone the planning process is repeated as eachdelivery unit/zone is inspected, assignments are evaluatedand adjustments are planned.

X-Route ProcessThe X-Route process is an alternative approach to routeadjustment in preparation for automation, particularlydelivery point sequencing. An X-Route is, in effect, aletter carrier craft assignment held pending reversion. Theworkload will be divided among remaining routes when agreedupon percentage(s) of letter mail is being received at aunit/zone in delivery point sequence order. The processallows changes to be planned in advance and permits carriersto know what their assignments are expected to be in theautomated environment. The X-Route process and tUae periodare considered completed when the unit/zone has achieved thefinal targeted level of Delivery Point sequence letter mailand the X-Route work has been distributed.

Pre-Agreement PhaseIf there is interest in attempting to utilize the X-Routealternative, local management will lIIeet with the local unionto review the provisions of this agreement. This includes areview of the attached Memorandua of Understanding on caseconfiguration, the Work Methods Kemorandtm, guidance on theHempstead case resolution and current base count andinspection data. If current route inspection data is notavailable, plans should be made to conduct route inspectionsin accordance with Article 41.3.5 of the National Agreementto provide a basis to Uaplement the remainder of thisagreement.

•

•

•

66

M-1306

Appendix D

-2-

If the parties are considering pursuing this alternative,they aust be cODDllitted to -utual resolution of the outcome.Management will share the following information with theunion:

The expected accounting period(s) and year thatincreases in bar-coded mail generated by the AutomationPrograms will impact the delivery unit/zone, such as'customer prebarcoding, MLOCR, DBCS, and RBCS.

The projected impact on the delivery unit/zone ofautomated sort schemes, and the basis for the estimate.

Agreement PhaseIt must be understood, once the decision to use the X-Routeprocess has been finalized, that decision can only bechanged through joint agreement between the local union andaanagement.

Since the planning and adjustment(s) in a delivery unit/zoneusing the X-Route alternative are a joint endeavor, theparties at the local level must first agree to a jointresolution process, should there be a barrier to fullimplementation of the parties agreement to use the X-Routealternative.

The parties will then meet to review route examinations forthe unit/zone. This exercise is intended to result inagreed upon evaluations.

If the parties fail to reach agreement regarding the use ofthe X-Route alternative, management may proceed to implementstrategies in concert with handbooks and manuals, theHempstead Resolution, and the National Agreement toaccomplish route adjustments. However, the provisions ofthis agreement are specific to application of the X-Routeconcept only and are not applicable to any other routeadjustment aethod.

In working out the X-Route adjustment process for thedelivery unit/zone, it is recognized and agreed thatl

Management must develop the final targeted DeliveryPoint sequencing percentage (from a low of 70\ to a highof 85\) of delivery point sequencing letter mail for the

•

•

•

M-1306Appendix D

-3-

X-Route period. That percentage is then used toestiaate the iapact on the unit/zone using theprojection IIethodology outlined in the Hempsteadresolution. The parties will jointly deteraine thenumber and identity of the routes that will bedesignated as X-Routes using the above estimates of theimpact on the delivery unit. While the X-Route conceptmay not be applicable to all routes within aninstallation because of limiting circumstances (i.e.,geographic considerations), such circumstances will notbe a barrier to implementing the concept. Thisdetermination as to the non-applicability to certainroutes will be made jointly.

The parties IllUst jointly determine what realignment ofroutes (in-office or street territory) will be necessaryto assure that X-Routes are strategically placed tofacilitate the transfer of workload as delivery pointsequencing evolves. The decision as to when to realignthe routes should be based upon the current need forrealignment in order to place the routes on as near aneight hour basis as possible based upon the currentevaluation from a recent inspection. The parties coulddecide to defer the proposed realignment of routes untilDelivery Point sequencing was implemented if nosignificant scheme changes were required to keep routesnear eight hours, or they could decide to make thenecessary scheme changes for the realignment of routesnow if significant scheme changes were going to beneeded to adjust routes to eight hours as currentlyevaluated. In no instance will the parties effectadjustment now based on the future event, except asprovided under interia adjustments (below). The regularcarrier on any route whose street territory is changedas a result of this adJustment and realignment mayelect, on a one-time basis, to vacate his/ber route andbecome an unassigned regular. Such action will nottrigger the provisions of Article 41.3.0. All positionsvacated in this manner will be posted and filled inaccordance with the procedures set forth in ArticleCl.1.

Where exceptional circumstances require furtheradjustments, they must be jointly agreed to by theparties. The objective is to provide a smoothtransition to the Delivery Point Sequencing environment.Such an outcome requires no change in day-to-dayadministration of curtailment procedures, auxiliaryassistance or overtime.

67

•

•

•

68M-1306A~endixD

-4-

The parties agree that adjustment strategies forDelivery point Sequencing will vary based on individualoffices, deployment schedules and types of deliveries.For instance, offices that will be impacted by RBCSdestinating keying prior to Delivery Point Barcoding andoffices further along in the deployment schedule may beat final targeted barcoding levels when Delivery Pointsequencing commences and therefore require only oneadjustment.

Some offices aay initiate DPBC and Delivery PointSequencing prior to full barcoding levels and requireand interia adjustment strategy. Adjustment strategydecisions will be made jointly based on deploymentschedules and current automation.

Once the Postal Service has implemented delivery pointsequencing and can demonstrate that the routes in adelivery unit/zone are receiving volumes at thetargeted percentage, the local parties will implementthe preplanned adjustments. Where an interia adjustmentstrategy will be necessary as described above due to thegradual increasing of DPBC levels, the local partieswill meet and make interL. adjustments by removing workfrom the X-Routes and assigning that work to the regularroutes which will remain after full implementation ofdelivery point sequencing.

After the completion of each interim adjustment, theparties will jointly determine the amount of hoursremaining on the X-Routes and will jointly decide how toefficiently combine assignments to provide the maximuanumber of full-time assignments. If this cannot beaccomplished in an efficient manner, the parties mayjointly decide to either fora auxiliary assignments orsplit the remaining hours frca these assignments to theregular routes that will remain once the final deliverypoint sequencing adjustments have been made. Where thislatter option is agreed upon, it is understood thatroutes will be built up (not to exceed 8:20). If lessthan 100\ of the routes will be built up, the followingpriority should be observed if efficiency can bemaintained:

(1) By seniority, routes whose regular carrier are onthe work Assignment List.

M-l306Appendix D

•(2 )

-5-

By seniority, routes whose regular carrier are onthe Overtime Desired List.

69

(3 ) By inverse seniority, carriers not on any OvertiaeDesired List.

•

Incumbents of, and bidders for, routes that are projected tocontinue after full implementation of automation will know,in advance, what portions of the X-Route a delivery routewill receive after full delivery point sequencing ison-line. X-Routes will be posted for bid when vacant, aslong as they remain full-time assignments. When an X-Routebecomes vacant and is posted for bid, the bid notice willinclude the anticipated date of elimination.

When an X-Route is abolished, the full-tiae carrier assignedto that route will become an unassigned regular. Be/sheaay, within 30 days, review the list of residual vacancieswithin his/her bidding area and use his/her seniority toexercise a preference for that assignment. This may beaccomplished by a bid posting limited to unassignedfull-time carriers displaced by abolishment of X-Routes orby other means agreed to locally between the parties. (Theprovisions of Article 41.3.0., where they have beenincorporated in the local memorandum, will not be triggeredby this process.)

The use of transitional employees in a unit where routeadjustments are achieved under the X-Route concept will bein accordance with the relevant National InterestArbitration Award and any subsequent agreement(s) betweenthe United states Postal service and the NationalAssociation of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO.

•

~·1ftf41Assistant postmaster GeneralLabor Relations Departmentu. s. Postal service

~UMr.t~Vl.ncent R. SOIilbrotO ,,/President 7/1~l--National Association of Letter

Carriers, AFL-CIO

•

•

•

70M-1306

Appendix E




The U.S. Postal Service and the National Association ofLetter Carriers, AFL-CIO, recognize the importance of thework methods that will be used in a delivery pointsequence environment. The parties also realize thesubstantial contribution that letter carriers can make inthe development of these work methods. Towardsfacilitating that involvement, the following principleshave been agreed to by the parties at the national level:

1. The following are the approved work methods:

o Case residual letters in the sameseparations with vertically cased flatmail, pull down and carry as onebundle.

o Case residual letter mail separatelyinto delivery sequence order, pull downand carry as a composite (third)bundle.

2. As implementation of the delivery point barcoding impacts a delivery unit, local partieswill select the most efficient work methodpossible from the delivery point sequence workmethods authorized in number 1 above. If thelocal parties cannot agree on the most efficientwork method, the issue will be presented to theparties at the Headquarters level to determinethe most efficient work method.

3. Local parties will also be encouraged to developefficient new work methods and to share theirideas with the parties at the national level forjoint review and evaluation. The purpose ofthis joint review and evaluation will be todetermine the efficiency of the local method.After the review and evaluation of the new workmethod and if the method proves to be efficient,it will be added to Item 1 above.

4. The parties agree that the work method in placeat the delivery unit will be utilized in theday-to-day management of letter carrier routesand in the procedures for inspection, evaluationand ~djustment of routes.

•Appendix E

-2-

5. The parties at the national level willcontinually review alternative methods in aneffort to improve efficiency. Both partiesagree that the process of continual joint reviewof new and more efficient work methods willresult in the continued upgrading at the localdelivery unit of the most efficient work method.

M-1306

71

•

•

Sh~~-'--Assistant Postmaster GeneralLabor Relations Departmentu. S. Postal Service

Date :~~f+t..f.;~'-'/rv!-_---

£e~~PresidentNational Association of


Date: 9ft'?),>-

•

•

•

72M-1306

Appendix F




It appears that, due to some differences in interpretation,there has been some lack of agreement between the partieslocally on application of the January 16, 1992, MittenthalAward on transitional employees (TE) in the Letter CarrierCraft. NALC and USPS have been meeting at the nationallevel to resolve those differences and, with the exceptionof the PTF conversion issue that is presently awaitingnational arbitration, we have reached accord regarding TEhire and utilization.

We anticipate that a joint TE booklet will be made availablefor reference in the next several weeks. In the meantime,the following information will serve to highlight areas ofapparent disparity in interpretation where mutualunderstanding has now been reached.

Completion of the DSSA will be accomplished in accordancewith existing instructions. It is in our joint interest toestablish a credible baseline from which realisticprojections can be made. Thus, every effort will be made toavoid any inflation of baseline hours or the baseline/projection difference. In that regard, the parties agreethat line 27 of the DSSA represents the ~verage weeklydifference between the authorized hours (shown on line 26).and the actual weekly hour~ being used by the unit,expressed as a percentage of authorized hours (line 26).

DSSA--Union Review--Management will make available to thelocal union all relevant information on which calculationsare based. Union representatives will be allowed reasonabletime to review management calculations on OSSAs. Our intentis to resolve OSSA and TE issues via information sharing anddiscussion rather than conflict and confrontation.

TE Hire versus Baseline DSSA--For purposes of implementingParts 1c (l)-{4) of the Award, TEs may be hired only after aunit's baseline and projection OSSAs have been completed andthe difference between the two has established a ceiling forTE hours. If, at that point, existing staffing is insufficient to meet the weekly requirements demonstrated by thebaseline OSSA, TEs may be employed without current attritionas a prerequisite. However, those TE hours will be offsetagainst the established ceiling of hours. The parties agreethat TEs may be used to cover only those residual vacancieswithheld pursuant to Article 12 since September 3, 1991.

•Appendix F

-2-

M-130673

•

•

TE Hire versus Projected Attrition--Where it is anticipatedthat attrition will satisfy the projected difference instaffing for automation, TEs will be employed to backfillfor attrition only after the unit or installation hasentered the transition period (defined as that length oftime needed for attrition to fulfill staffing reductionrequirements). In such circcmstances, attrition prior tothe transition period will be fulfilled by career employees,with the exception of residual vacancies withheld forexcessing (another craft or installation).

TE Use to Cover Opting--Whether TEs are hired as soon asvacancies occur or after opting takes place, it is agreedthat there will be no pyramiding of any defined TE hireopportunity.

Held Pending Reversion--These positions must be posted.However, the residual vacancy that results from such postingwill then be considered the held-pending-reversion vacancy.This vacancy will then be made available for opting asoutlined in the award. When the original held-pendingreversion position is actually reverted, the carrierassigned to that position becomes an unassigned regular andis eligible to bid for any vacant duty assignment within hisbid area.

Workhour Guarantees--While we recognize that TE schedulingis subject to a four-hour guarantee, local management hasthe responsibility to afford the PTF priority in schedulingworkhours in accordance with the Mittenthal interestarbitration award.

TE Hire versus Excessing

A full-time letter carrier may not be excessed and theresulting vacancy filled by a TE, except where managementcan demonstrate that, as a result of legitimate operationalchanges, there is insufficient work to continue to support afull-time position. For example, management may not abolisha full-time router position and excess the full-time lettercarrier and hire or assign one or more TEs to perform thework of the abolished position, unless management candemonstrate that the work cannot be performed on a full-timebasis in compliance with the requirements of the NationalAgreement.

Disputes concerning the above, if unresolved in thegrievance procedure, shall be placed at the head of theregional (other than removal) arbitration docket.

•74

M-1306Appendix F

-3-

The foregoing matters have been agreed to and will beelaborated on in the joint booklet. However, the intent ofthis memorandum is to clarify some areas of potentialdisagreement, to avoid grievances and to jointly provide anexpeditious way to achieve the service improvements andsavings ,that the TE award makes possible.

•

•

s~_·_---Assistant Postmaster GeneralLabor Relations Department

Date: _...;f'!-,i'Zu.~~0....!.f'-=" _

~ClMl;t~Vincent R. SOmbrot 0PresidentNational Association of


Date: c;b76L-

Building Our Future by - National Association of Letter ...mseries.nalc.org/M01306.pdf · M-131Jb...

Documents

Transcript of Building Our Future by - National Association of Letter ...mseries.nalc.org/M01306.pdf · M-131Jb...