NAPS to Return to Pay Talks With USPS
December 8, 2011
The executive board of the National Association of Postal Supervisors voted today to accept the Postal Service’s offer to return to the table for an additional round of pay consultations. NAPS will continue their efforts to reach a new pay agreement that would cover over 28,000 active association member’s pay and benefits for the period from 2011 through 2014.
Prior consultative meetings with the Postal Service ended without an agreement on November 16, 2011. NAPS exercised their rights to request to enter Fact Finding, a statutory right they have within 39 USC Section 1004. The Postal Service made the offer to re-open pay consultations to NAPS on December 7th after a request had been made by the two other management associations to re-open pay talks.
President Atkins advised the membership of NAPS that the officers and executive board have considered all the factors involved in obtaining a fair and reasonable pay and benefit package for the members of NAPS and believed that continuing discussions would be advantageous at this time.
The new deadline for pay talks is January 27, 2012.
NAPS still maintains the right to invoke Fact Finding should the extended deliberations not be fruitful.
NAPS Requests Fact Finding on USPS 2011-2015 Pay Package Offer
Filed under: NAPS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
NAPS Response to USPS Pay Package FY 2011-2015
“Although the Postal Service’s current financial condition would lend itself to belt-tightening by everyone in the Postal Service, our organization cannot agree with the pay proposals that have been offered in light of the efforts that our members have given in managing operations and supporting the overall service goals and mission of the Postal Service. NAPS also proposed many other provisions beyond pay and benefits that were not addressed by the Postal Service. We intend to exhaust all remedies to ensure that we reach a fair and equitable pay package.”
NAPS Invokes Rights under Title 39, USC and requests Fact Finding:
On Monday, November 14, 2011, the National Association of Postal Supervisors initiated a request to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to enter Fact Finding with the United States Postal Service in accordance with procedures in 39 U.S.C. Section 1004(f) and 29 CFR Part 1404.
Now that our request for Fact Finding has been submitted, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. Section 1004(f)(2), within 15 days after receiving our request, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall provide a list of seven (7) individuals recognized as experts in supervisory and managerial pay policies.
Each party shall designate one individual from the list to serve on the panel. If, within 10 days after the list is provided, either of the parties has not designated an individual from the list, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall make the designation. The first two individuals designated from the list shall meet within 5 days and shall designate a third individual from the list.
The third individual shall chair the panel. If the two individuals designated from the list are unable to designate a third individual within 5 days after their first meeting, the Director shall designate the third individual. In addition to the submission to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, we served notice to the Postal Service of our intentions to initiate Fact Finding.
As further information becomes available we will release it to the membership. We appreciate your support in this matter.
NAPS Resident Officers
source: National Association of Postal Supervisors
NAPS To Congress: USPS Network Plans and Elimination of Next-Day Delivery Will Contribute to its Demise
Filed under: Congress, NAPS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
From the National Association of Postal Supervisors
“NAPS sent to the full House and Senate Committees expressing our position on the Postal Service’s plans to consolidate and close processing facilities along with our recommendations for a legislative solution.” Read more
NAPS Urge Senators To Support Carper, Collins Postal Reform Bills
Filed under: NAPS, postal, postal reform, postal supervisors, press releases, usps
From the National Association of Postal Supervisors:
August 31, 2011
Dear Member of the United States Senate:
I write on behalf of the nearly 32,000 members of our association, many of whom work and vote in your District.
The United States Postal Service faces an unprecedented crisis. It is projected to run out of cash on September 30, an outcome caused largely by retiree health care prepayments the Postal Service is required to make that are far larger than reasonable or necessary. This result is due to Congressional statutory requirements imposed in 2006, not to Postal Service mismanagement.
We urge Congress to realign the Postal Service’s retiree health prefunding schedule to a larger time period consistent with what the Postal Service can afford, making use of a surplus created by Postal Service pension overpayments. That pension surplus, according to studies of the Postal Regulatory Commission and the Inspector General of the Postal Service, could be as large as $55-75 billion. Legislative proposals offered by Sen. Tom Carper (S. 1010) and Sen. Susan Collins (S. 353), in part, would realign the Postal Service’s prefunding payments.
Realignment of the Postal Service’s retiree health prefunding payments clearly would defuse the postal crisis. Most important, this action would eliminate the need for sweeping, alternative proposals recently advanced by the Postal Service, which we oppose, which would:
- Reduce delivery to six days per week to five days per week or less;
- Eliminate overnight delivery of First Class mail in local areas, resulting in the closure of nearly half of current mail processing facilities, eliminating thousands of jobs;
- Close thousands of small Post Offices, many of them in rural areas; and
- Permit the Postal Service to secede from the federal health and retirement programs and create alternative health and retirement plans for its employees and retirees.
The proposals offered by Sen. Tom Carper and Sen. Susan Collins, in part, would require the Office of Personnel Management to review the postal Service’s past pension payments, using modern, well-accepted principles of accounting, and to require the Postal Service to use any surplus of payments to satisfy its remaining health prefunding obligations under the 2006 law.
We urge you to support these measured and responsible efforts proposed by your colleagues to stabilize the Postal Service’s financial outlook. Without swift action, it will be difficult, if not impossible to avoid the massive changes in service and infrastructure the USPS unnecessarily has had to propose.
Sincerely Yours
Louis M. Atkins
President
Atkins letter to Senate.pdf (application/pdf Object).
NAPS: Postal Supervisors Not Included In Pay For Performance Freeze
“NAPS requested clarification from Postal Headquarters regarding the announcement that Postal Service officer and executive compensation would be frozen, as it relates to the Postal Service’s pay-for-performance program. Postal Headquarters stated that the USPS Awards Program for employee recognition and incentive awards which includes monetary SPOT Awards, AVP Awards, etc. will be suspended until further notice. The pay-for-performance (PFP) program pertaining to field EAS is not subject to this suspension. Furthermore, NAPS pay agreement with the USPS regarding PFP expired on October 1, 2010. Therefore, at this time, NAPS is under no agreement with the USPS regarding PFP after FY2010.”
The National Association of Postal Supervisors
USPS rejects postmasters’ recommendations on saved grade for RIF’d employees
Filed under: NAPUS, NLPM, postal, postal news, postal supervisors
From the National League of Postmasters:
The LEAGUE has received official notification that the significant recommendations that LEAGUE and NAPUS submitted in reference to the revisions of Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) Section 415, Rate Retention and Change to Lower EAS Grade will not be adopted. There was one recommendation that was adopted regarding applying for lateral reassignment to vacant duty assignments at their saved grade levels within their commuting areas to protect the salary. This was minor language to include in the overall change. The organizations submitted recommendations on two occasions to try and save some of the salary protection that EAS had received in the past during RIF Avoidance period, Specific RIF Notice Period or a RIF.
This means that those Nonbargainig Unit employees impacted by RIF Avoidance period, Specific RIF Notice Period, RIF-Related 30-Day Nonduty, Nonpay Status period, or a Rif will not receive saved salary indefinitely. Employees retain their current grade and pay for a period not to exceed 2 years from the effective date of the change to the lower grade position. On expiration of the saved grade period, if the employee’s salary is within the salary range for the lower grade, the salary is continued. However, if the salary exceeds the maximum of the new grade, the salary is immediately reduced to the grade maximum.
The League is disappointed that the significant portion of our proposals was not adopted. Postal Headquarters continued to sight the financial conditions they were presently facing could not justify any saved salary past the two years.
Rate retention currently in affect for DUO impacted Postmasters and Managers is still in effect.
Click and hit enter to view some RIF FAQs regarding this change. (PDF)
NAPS Issues Document To Assist Supervisors Impacted By Restructuring
Filed under: NAPS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
The National Association of Postal Supervisors issued this document for impacted management employees
Should you have become an impacted employee as a result of this announcement, the following information has been developed to assist you in knowing what the process of a restructuring entails. Becoming an impacted employee is a shocking experience that is going to bring significant anxiety, nervousness, sleeplessness, and a general feeling of depression and hopelessness.
NAPS has previously been assured by the Postal Service that we will be provided listings of all vacancies that exist in each of the remaining Districts and positions that will remain in the field that were related to the eliminated Districts. Your NAPS Area Vice President will be a valuable resource for you as we expect that all of our field officers will have been provided with a listing of all vacancies that will be available in your District or within a commuting distance of your current location.
NAPS has developed this information to assist all of our members in understanding more about the current restructuring and what you should do if you are impacted by either an Area or District closing or a reduction of District staffing that causes you to be an impacted employee.
Once you have dealt with the initial shock of the fact that your position has been eliminated, you have to get to the next step in the process; what are you going to do?
NAPS Restructuring Document For Postal Supervisors
Video: PMG addresses NAPS Members At Legislative Training Seminar
Filed under: postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps, videos
PMG Pat Donahoe speaks to National Association Of Supervisors members at the 2011 Legislative Training Seminar held March 20-23, 2011 in Washington, DC.
Part 2
Postal Supervisor Loses Lawsuit on Hostile Work Environment
Filed under: legal cases, owcp, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
Postal Supervisor Claimed A Hostile Work Environment aggravated his medical condition and USPS failed to investigate.
The following facts are based upon the allegations in John Pell’s amended complaint filed in the United States District Court and information from the EEOC case.
Pell is a former employee of the USPS who worked at the Framingham, Massachusetts Post Office. In 2003, while employed as a supervisor at the USPS, Pell was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and a psychiatric condition called Transient Global Amnesia (“TGA”). After these initial diagnoses, he remained out of work until his doctors released him to return to work. Pell’s doctors allowed him to return to work in 2005 on the condition that the USPS provide “strict enforcement” of USPS regulations and policies in Pell’s work environment, specifically those regulations and policies that prohibited workplace threats, harassment, bullying, intimidation and that contain a “zero tolerance” policy for unacceptable levels of workplace stress. Pell claims that he sought such “strict enforcement” as a “reasonable accommodation” [under the Rehabilitation Act] of his condition to enable him to perform the essential duties of his job. From the time he returned to work at some point in 2005 until September 5, 2006, Pell alleges the USPS strictly enforced USPS regulations and policies in his work environment and as a result he was able to perform all of the essential functions of his job.
However, on September 5, 2006, Framingham Postmaster William Harris approached Pell at the beginning of his shift, accused Pell of sexual harassment, and told him he had three choices: (1) accept a demotion; (2) transfer out of the Framingham Post Office; or (3) “I’ll throw you out.” Pell alleges that Harris’ conduct towards him violated USPS regulations and policies against bullying, harassment, threats, and intimidation. As a result of Harris’ conduct towards him, Pell suffered a TGA episode, left the workplace and has not returned to work since that day. He has since retired from the USPS.
Pell was unhappy with the USPS’s handling of his complaint about the September 5, 2006 incident. Pell alleges that, in connection with a worker’s compensation claim he filed when he was out of work, Harris completed two forms related to the September 5, 2006 incident that were inconsistent and incomplete. Pell also claims that Harris failed to investigate the September 5, 2006 incident fully because he did not interview Pell or other witnesses. Pell further alleges that he requested that Harris be investigated for violating USPS policies and regulations in connection with the September 5, 2006 incident, but that USPS District Manager John Powers chose not to do so. In early 2008, Pell reported Harris’ violations of USPS policies and regulations to USPS Northeast Area Vice President Haney , but Haney refused to investigate Harris’ conduct and refused to refer the alleged violations to the Office of the Inspector General .
Pell sought EEO counseling on March 31, 2008 — nearly a year and a half after the alleged September 5, 2006 incident of discrimination. In contacting the EEO, Pell indicated that the date of the alleged discriminatory incident was March 4, 2008 — the date Pell became aware that Haney would not refer the alleged violations of USPS policies and regulations to OIG.
After receiving the EEO notice of right to file a formal complaint on June 23, 2008, Pell filed a complaint with the EEO on July 8, 2008. On July 28, 2008, the EEO dismissed Pell’s complaint for two reasons: (1) failure to state a claim because the Department of Labor is the proper forum to address the basis of Pell’s then pending worker’s compensation claim; and (2) untimely EEO counselor contact because Pell failed to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the September 5, 2006 incident.
Pell then timely appealed the dismissal of his EEO complaint to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations. The OFO upheld the Postal Service’s dismissal:
The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on another proceeding. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993).
In this matter, we find that the instant complaint is a collateral attack on a proceeding before the Department of Labor, and the proper forum for complainant to raise any challenges regarding the agency’s
improper investigation of his injury is during that proceeding itself. The Commission agrees with the agency that complainant fails to state claim. See Hannon v. Treasury, Request No. 05A01149 (May 8, 2003).
After a review of the record, including statements and arguments not addressed herein, based on the reasons above, we find that the agency properly dismissed the complaint.
Reading the allegations in the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Pell, his claim is likewise barred by the Rehabilitation Act’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Pell alleges that Harris’ conduct on September 5, 2006 amounted to discrimination based on Pell’s psychiatric disability and caused Pell to suffer a recurrence of his TGA, forcing him to leave the workplace that very day. Like the plaintiff in Roman-Martinez who was required to contact the EEO counselor within 30 days of the alleged discriminatory actions, Pell was required to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the September 5, 2006 incident.2 It is uncontested that Pell failed to contact an EEO counselor within this required 45 day period and, therefore, his claim is barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Pell does not argue that Haney’s March 4, 2008 denial of any further investigation of the September 5, 2006 incident constituted a new discriminatory action and thus became the triggering event for commencing EEO procedures nor would such argument be plausible on the basis of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. The Supreme Court has held, “the time for filing a charge of employment discrimination with the [EEOC] begins when the discriminatory act occurs . . . . A new violation does not occur, and a charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.” Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618, 628 (2007) (superceded on other grounds by Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5). “[T]he proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts become the most painful.”
Even read in the light most favorable to Pell, March 4, 2008 was the date on which he learned that the USPS would not further investigate or refer his claim that the September 5, 2006 incident was discriminatory. That is, the September 5, 2006 allegedly discriminatory act triggered Pell’s obligation to contact the EEO
Having ruled that this matter must be dismissed because of Pell’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court need not reach Defendants’ further argument that dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is also warranted because he has failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination based on a disability.
John Pell vs JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, March 1, 2011
NAPS: Congress Needs To Correct Two Massive Errors Driving USPS Into The Red
Filed under: NAPS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, Postmasters, usps
More than 500 Postal Supervisors, along with many Postmasters, are meeting with Congressional offices on the Hill March 22-23, 2011.
From the National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS)
The Postal Service warned Congress earlier this month that it will run out of cash by the end of the current fiscal year, on September 30, if it has to make the required payment of $5.5 billion into the Postal Retiree Health Benefit Fund.
Two massive errors – by Congress and the federal bureaucracy – have caused the Postal Service to approach the brink of financial insolvency. These mistakes were avoidable and should be cured by Congress.
Massive Error #1: Huge Retiree Health Prepayments. The first error involves the size of the annual Postal Service payment into the Postal Retiree Health Benefit Fund, a burden that Congress imposed on the Postal Service in 2006. No federal entity – other than the Postal Service — is required to make prefunding payments for future retiree health care costs. Prefunding is a good idea, BUT the size of the prepayments has bled the Postal Service into the red. The payments must be restructured, the same way a mortgage payment is restructured.
But for these large prefunding payments, the Postal Service would have been in the red in only two of the past four years, despite significant drops in mail volume due to the recession and the internet.
Massive Error #2: Huge Pension Overpayments. Ongoing errors by the federal bureaucracy – the Office of Personnel Management — have forced the Postal Service to make huge pension overpayments over the past 40 years into the federal civil service pension fund.
How much? The Postal Regulatory Commission and the Inspector General of the Postal Service estimate the Postal Service has overpaid between $55 – 75 billion into the civil service pension fund. This essentially has resulted in a hidden “Stamp Tax” on postage ratepayers.
Congress should correct these massive errors and restore the Postal Service to financial stability by:
– Refunding the Pension Overpayments to the Postal Service: Ordering OPM to recalculate the pension payments made by the Postal Service and refunding any overpayments back to the Postal Service; and by
– Directing the Postal Service to use the refunded pension overpayments to satisfy its future retiree health benefit obligations.
This is not a bailout. This is a win-win for government accountability and a solvent Postal Service. The correction of postal pension overpayments should not increase the federal deficit. Fair dealing between one arm of the federal government and another should not permit incorrect and unjustified payments into the federal treasury to stand.
SATURDAY DELIVERY SHOULD BE THE LAST RESORT, NOT THE FIRST
Under current law, the Postal Service is required to deliver mail six days a week. As you know, the Postal Service has asked Congress to revise the law to permit the Postal Service to end Saturday delivery.
We believe that cutting Saturday delivery is unnecessary, at least for now. Saturday delivery will be counter-productive and harmful to the postal system, American
households and businesses.
If Congress acts to refund the Postal Service for its pension overpayments and restructures its pension and health benefit obligations, the Postal Service will be on a more stable financial footing – without the need to end Saturday delivery.
Reducing mail delivery days should be the last resort, not the first.