Postal Unions Join Forces To Save America’s Postal Service
Rallies Set for Sept. 27 in Every Congressional District
The APWU has joined forces with the three other postal unions to designate Sept. 27 as a day of action to Save America’s Postal Service.
|
Together, the APWU and the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association will rally in every congressional district in the country to build support for H.R. 1351, a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA).
“With the USPS’s dire financial situation making headlines, and a battle raging in Congress over what to do about it, postal workers must take action now,” said APWU President Cliff Guffey. “I urge APWU members to work with our brothers and sisters in the other postal unions to organize the rallies. We must let every U.S. representative know that we need their support.”
The Lynch bill would prevent the financial collapse of the USPS — without closing thousands of post offices, eliminating hundreds of mail processing facilities, delaying mail delivery, laying off 120,000 workers, cutting postal workers’ pay, or ending collective bargaining rights. It would allow the Postal Service to apply billions of dollars in pension overpayments to the congressional mandate that requires the USPS to pre-fund the healthcare benefits of future retirees. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which forces the Postal Service to fund a 75-year liability in 10 years — at a cost of more than $5 billion annually. Without the mandate, the USPS would have shown a surplus of $611 million over the past four fiscal years. Read more
Has Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Been Named The New Postmaster General?
USPS to Congress: Break Our Collective Bargaining Agreements
With National bargaining over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement about to begin, the Postal Service has publicly announced that management is seeking wholesale changes in its collective bargaining agreements. In short, they are asking Congress to override collective bargaining.
President John Hegarty and Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner have sent a memo out to the field outlining the NPMHU’s opposition to these ill-conceived schemes.
* * * * * * *
August 12, 2011
TO: All Local Unions
All National/Regional CAD
FROM: John F. Hegarty, National President
Mark A. Gardner, National Secretary-Treasurer
RE: USPS to Congress: Break Our Collective Bargaining Agreements
With National bargaining over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement about to begin, the Postal Service has publicly announced that management is seeking wholesale changes in its collective bargaining agreements. USPS management also has decided to try to bypass the NPMHU and other postal unions, by asking Congress to enact legislation that would impose most of its outrageous proposals. Instead of coming to the bargaining table in good faith, management is looking for two bites of the apple. The mentality seems to be: let’s see what we can get through bargaining, and then if we don’t like it, we’ll go to Congress. This might lead one to ask: Has Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker been named the new PMG?
Just yesterday, the Postal Service announced that it was seeking to abrogate the no-layoff clause, eliminate the application of the CSRS and FERS retirement systems to postal employees, and end the Postal Service’s coverage under the Federal Health Benefits Program. And to make matters worse, the Postal Service did not propose these changes at the bargaining table, but instead went straight to Congress to seek these changes by legislation. USPS management has circulated two “white papers” on Capitol Hill and in the press that attempt to justify their actions. Those “white papers” will be posted on our web site, and will also be circulated to the Union Leadership at our upcoming National-level meeting (which ironically is being held in Wisconsin).
Apparently, the Postal Service understands that such draconian proposals would have little chance of being supported by the NPMHU during the next round of bargaining, so instead the agency decided to ignore its obligation to bargain directly and in good faith with the NPMHU.
Such tactics do not suggest that postal management will be adopting an enlightened and cooperative atmosphere during this year’s collective bargaining, but only time will tell. In the meantime, the NPMHU and all of its Local Unions and members are urged to oppose these changes with their elected representatives on Capitol Hill. This end-around by USPS management only reinforces the need for all rank and file mail handlers to put pen to paper, and write to their elected representatives to oppose this foolhardy scheme.
The National Office continues to gather additional information, and these matters will be discussed in greater detail with all of the Local Union Presidents.
source: National Postal Mail Handlers Union
Colorado Mail Handlers Local Withdraws From USPS, OSHA Ergonomic Program
“The Ergonomic Risk Reduction Process (ERRP) reduces both the number and severity of musculoskeletal disorders, builds labor/management teams with ergonomic skills, and cultivates partnerships to identify and control ergonomic risk. These partnerships include OSHA, NPMHU, and APWU. Since its inception in 2003, 176 plants and 9 districts have implemented ERRP, with over 155,000 employees receiving training. ERRP sites that have been involved in the process for at least 12 months experienced a 21.9 percent reduction in musculoskeletal disorders this year.”–source: USPS Read more
USPS: New Labor Contract Saves $3.8 Billion
Filed under: APWU, NALC, NPMHU, postal, postal news, press releases, usps
Extends Flexibility to Adjust to America’s Changing Mailing Trends
WASHINGTON — It’s official. The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) AFL-CIO ratified March 14 tentative labor contract agreement with the U.S. Postal Service that will save the nation’s mail system $3.8 billion over the four and a half year life of the contract that becomes effective today.
“This contract serves as a testament to the commitment the American Postal Workers Union has to its membership and to preserving the future of the Postal Service,” said Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe. “We worked together to negotiate a responsible agreement that is in the best interest of our customers, our employees and the future of the Postal Service. It offers short-term cost relief, structural changes to future labor costs and enhanced workforce flexibility to adjust to America’s changing mailing trends.”
“I am pleased that we were able to negotiate a contract that will strengthen the Postal Service for the future and protect the job security of union members so that we can better serve the American people,” said APWU President Cliff Guffey. “The new contract accomplishes those goals,” he added, “and it shows that public-employee unions and their employers can make collective bargaining work — even when faced with a financial crisis.”
The contract, which is effective May 23, 2011, through May 20, 2015, is a cornerstone for the Postal Service to achieve short-term cost relief, structural changes and enhanced workforce flexibility.
Short-term cost relief
The contract includes a wage freeze for the first two years, with low wage increases over the life of the contract (ranging from 0 to 1.5 percent), totaling 3.5 percent. Cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are eliminated in the first year, deferred in the second to the third year and resumed thereafter.
Structural changes
The agreement establishes a new career pay schedule that on average is permanently 10.2 percent lower than the current pay schedule. It also allows for significantly increased use of non-career employees from the current level of 5.9 percent to 20 percent in clerk craft and 10 percent in maintenance and motor vehicle craft function. As the Postal Service moves to greater use of non-career employees, which will happen as current APWU employees retire, the Postal Service will not be incurring long-term liability costs for retirements and other benefits.
Enhanced workforce flexibility
The contract introduces completely new scheduling flexibility for career employees; rather than working 8 hours a day for 40 hours a week, the Postal Service can schedule employees for irregular shifts with hours totaling between 30 and 48 hours per week. Employees will contribute additional amounts to health care premiums; employer contributions to health care will equal 76 percent at the end of the contract.
The agreement is a key component in the Postal Service’s strategy to address its dire financial condition. Other components include aggressive cost-reductions in excess of $12 billion over the last four years. The postal workforce has been reduced by more than 112,000 employees in the same time frame, through consolidating mail-processing facilities and reducing the Postal Service retail facility footprint.
Nearly 205,000 employees represented by the APWU generally work as clerks, mechanics, vehicle drivers, custodians and in some administrative positions.
Negotiations with the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association (NRLCA) came to an impasse upon the contract’s Nov. 20, 2010, expiration; however, discussions between the parties continue. If those discussions do not result in a negotiated resolution, the parties will continue to follow the current agreement until a third party determines the outcome of a new contract. Unlike in the private sector, when negotiations come to an impasse, federal employees are not permitted to strike. An arbitrator determines the final outcome and is not legally required to consider the Postal Service’s financial obligations when rendering a decision.
Employees represented by the NRLCA deliver mail in primarily rural and suburban areas. The NRLCA represents 67,000 career employees and 48,000 non-career employees who substitute for career employees on their days off. Employees represented by both unions received more than $20 billion in wages and benefits last year.
Two other unions represent most other postal employees. More than 203,000 employees represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC) deliver mail in metropolitan areas, and 48,000 employees represented by the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, AFL-CIO (NPMHU) work in mail-processing plants and Post Offices.
The NALC and NPMHU begin negotiations this year approximately 90 days prior to the midnight Nov. 20, 2011 contract expiration date. For additional background information on labor negotiations and the Postal Service’s workforce, please click on these links: Labor Negotiations and Workforce.
Postal Mail Handler President Accused of Defrauding Postal Workers
A Fort Worth federal grand jury indicted a former postal worker and union leader who allegedly defrauded postal employees of more than $225,000.
John P. Woods Jr., 68, of Arlington was a U.S. Postal Service employee and elected president of the Fort Worth branch of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union before he was charged with 25 counts of wire fraud, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The union was located at the Jack D. Watson Processing and Distribution Center in Fort Worth where managers resorted to using other Postal Service employees to handle mail when the center was overcome with a high volume of mail, the release said.
The is in an apparent violation of a national agreement between the two entities, according to the release.
Woods helped to file class-action lawsuits against the Postal Service, which in turn agreed to compensate mail handlers, the release said.
Woods is accused of creating and operating a scheme in which more than $225,000 of the settlements would be paid to him and his chief stewards between January 2006 and February 2007, according to the indictment.
Read more: Star Telegram
Press Release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District Of Texas
FORT WORTH, Texas —A federal grand jury in Fort Worth returned an indictment this week against John P. Woods, Jr., 68, of Arlington, Texas, charging him with 25 counts of wire fraud, announced U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas. It is expected that Woods will self surrender within the week.
According to the indictment, Woods was a U S. Postal Service employee and elected branch president of the Fort Worth branch of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, located at the Jack D. Watson Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC). Woods received a salary from the Postal Service but performed only union business. As union branch president, Woods represented more than 300 mail handlers who worked at the P&DC
Postal Service managers at the P&DC experienced a high mail volume and resorted to using other Postal Service employees on a continuing basis to perform mail handler work, in apparent violation of the national agreement between the Postal Service and the union. Woods caused numerous grievances to be filed against the Postal Service, who agreed to compensate mail handlers.
Between January 2006 and February 2007, Woods devised and operated a scheme to defraud mail handlers at the P&DC, and to obtain for himself and his chief shop stewards more than $225,000, by causing most of the grievance settlements to be paid to Woods and his chief stewards.
An indictment is an accusation by a federal grand jury, and a defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. If convicted, however, Woods faces a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, per count. In addition, restitution could be ordered.
The case is being investigated by the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General. Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys William A. Keefer and Katherine H. Reilly are in charge of the prosecution.
APWU, Postal Unions Urge Obama To Fix USPS Pension Overfunding
Filed under: APWU, NALC, NAPS, NLPM, NPMHU, postal, postal news, usps
The APWU and other postal unions and management associations have asked President Barack Obama to take “immediate action to save almost 100,000 good, middle-class jobs and stabilize the financial condition” of the Postal Service.
“A healthy postal system is critical for a healthy U.S. economy,” the organizations wrote [PDF] on Jan. 12.
“The financial problems facing the Postal Service were made significantly worse by a Bush-era mandate that the agency pre-fund nearly 80 percent of its future retiree health care obligations by 2016 at a crushing cost of $5.5 billion per year… No other agency or company in America is required to pre-fund such obligations at all, much less on such an accelerated schedule,” the organizations wrote.
Had it not been for these payments, the Postal Service would have experienced a $611 million profit over the past four years — despite the recent recession and competition from the Internet, the letter notes. The USPS experienced a deficit of $8.505 billion in Fiscal Year 2010, and anticipates a deficit of $6.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2011.
A Sound Solution
“Fortunately, there is a sound policy solution to this pre-funding burden,” the letter says. “The Postal Service should be permitted to use the surplus in its two pension funds — the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System — to cover the cost of its future retiree health obligations.” Three independent actuarial studies have confirmed the USPS has a surplus of between $50 billion and $75 billion in its CSRS pension account, and $6 billion to $7 billion in its FERS account.
As the letter notes, however, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) maintains the position it first adopted during the Bush administration: That Congress must authorize the actuarial methods proposed by the studies. OPM claims that laws passed in 1974 and 2003 require the unfair methods that are currently used, even though those laws were repealed by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006.
The chief authors of the 2006 law, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), have argued that OPM has the authority to adopt fair and accurate actuarial methods for allocating postal pension costs.
“Since OPM refuses to exercise this authority,” the letter says, “we urge you to use your authority as President to direct it to do so.”
“The financial crisis facing the Postal Service in 2011 is a daunting one, but unlike so many challenges facing the nation today, there is a feasible and responsible answer to this short-term crisis,” the letter says. “The Postal Service can avoid short-sighted and self-defeating cuts in service to the American people without a penny in taxpayer support if you take the actions we request.”
The letter was signed by APWU President Cliff Guffey; Frederic V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers; Don Cantriel, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association; John F. Hegarty, president of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union; Louis M. Atkins, president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors; and Mark W. Strong, president of the National League of Postmasters of the United States.
NLRB: Postal Mail Handlers Union Entitled to Test Scores of New Hires
The National Labor Relations Board recently issued the following ruling in favor of National Postal Mail Handlers on its request for information:
On July 2, 2007, NPMHU President Julio Figueroa emailed the USPS’s human resources specialist, Carlos Perez, requesting “the register listing for those candidates qualified for hiring,” and specifying that “[t]he listing should include the veteran employees as well as non-veterans and their position in the roster.” Figueroa sent this request because several bargaining-unit employees, who were veterans of the armed forces, had raised concerns that several nonveterans had been hired before them, even though the veterans had applied much earlier than the nonveterans. On July 17 and 26, Figueroa emailed Perez reiterating his information request. Human Resources Manager Carol Rubenstein responded on July 26, stating that Labor Relations Manager Keith Reid would follow up on Figueroa’s request.
In August, Figueroa and Union Vice President Miguel Pazo de Jesus met with Reid in his office. Figueroa reminded Reid of the outstanding information request, and explained that he had received complaints from veteran employees that nonveterans had been given preferential hiring treatment.
By letter dated October 18, USPS’s labor relations manager ,Juan Delgado, informed Figueroa that the information request was extensive and encompassed confidential information. He added that the request was being processed, and that Figueroa would be informed when all of the documents were available. Having received no further response, on November 15, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that USPS failed and refused to furnish the Union with the information requested on July 2. The charge described the requested information as “the listing for those candidates qualified for hiring, including veteran employees and non veterans, and their positions in the roster.”
On December 17, USPS’s legal representative, Leslie Rowe, informed Figueroa by email that the 2007 hiring register information relating to the applicants’ scores would be redacted unless he obtained the applicants’ consent to release them. Figueroa emailed Rowe a few hours later, insisting that USPS furnish the information in unredacted form or explain its legal basis for refusing to do so. By letter dated December 19, Delgado informed Figueroa that the information would be available for review in Delgado’s office or that, alternatively, Delgado could mail him a copy. On December 20, Rowe sent Figueroa an email stating that the Respondent was willing to provide the Union with a copy of the 2007 hiring register, but with the basic and final scores redacted as “a way to satisfy your request without compromising the privacy of the test takers.”
The next day, Figueroa reviewed the 2007 hiring register in Delgado’s office with the scores redacted. Immediately thereafter, Figueroa emailed Rowe stating that this information did not satisfy the information request, in part because it did not indicate the applicants’ veterans’ preference.[4] USPS’s law department subsequently sent the Union a copy of the 2007 hiring register, but with applicants’ basic scores and final ratings redacted.
On January 30, 2008,[5] Figueroa submitted a follow-up information request for the “Caribbean District Hiring Registers including the scores of all the candidates (veteran and nonveteran) for the year of 2007,” along with the individuals’ names, veterans’ status, final rating, and eligibility position on the register. Reid responded the same day, inquiring as to the relevance of the follow-up request, noting that many individuals on the 2007 register were applicants and not unit employees. Reid also asked Figueroa to explain why he sought the names of any individuals known to have been “harmed.” Also that day, the Union filed an amended charge alleging that the Respondent refused to furnish the Union with “the basic scores and final ratings of the Mailhandler candidates in the Caribbean District registry from January of 2007 to January of 2008.” Additionally, Figueroa responded to Reid that the information previously provided was incomplete, and that he had amended the Union’s unfair labor practice charges as described above.
On February 1, Figueroa wrote Reid and Rowe repeating the January 30 information request. By email dated February 4, Rowe responded and asked Figueroa whether he was requesting new information. That same day, Reid also responded and explained that he was attempting to assess relevance as to who may have been injured and the Union’s right to represent their interests. There was no further communication between the parties.
On February 29, the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that, on or about January 30, the Union requested “among other things, the basic test scores and final ratings of all prospective candidates for mailhandler positions in Respondent’s Caribbean District Registry for calendar year 2007” and that USPSt violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to furnish that requested information.
The judge’s decision
The judge first found that the test scores of applicants who were not hired by the Respondent involved matters outside the bargaining unit, and were thus not relevant to the Union’s bargaining duties.[6] However, the judge further found that, during the hearing, the Union made clear that its information request specifically included the test scores of the 22 mail handlers hired off the 2007 hiring register. The judge explained that this information was necessary for the calculation and verification of seniority for the existing employees, and thus was presumptively relevant to the Union’s role as the bargaining representative. In addition, the judge rejected the Respondent’s argument that the test scores and final ratings of the 22 employees were confidential, distinguishing Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979), in which the Supreme Court found a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest in the scores of certain job applicants who had failed a psychological aptitude test. The judge found that, unlike Detroit Edison, the scores at issue here were of applicants who passed the test and were hired into the positions for which they applied.
The Respondent excepts, reasserting its arguments to the judge, and additionally contending that it was denied due process because the judge found a violation not alleged in the complaint. As explained below, we find that these exceptions lack merit.
It is well established that, as part of its obligation to bargain in good faith, an employer must, upon request, furnish a union with information that is relevant and necessary for it to perform its statutory duties. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The Board applies a broad, discovery-type standard for determining relevance. See, e.g., Mid-Continent Concrete, 336 NLRB 258, 258 (2001), enfd. 308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002). The test scores and final ratings of the 22 bargaining unit employees hired in 2007, as well as their names, veterans’ status, and standing on the hiring register are clearly relevant to the Union’s statutory duty to police the collective-bargaining agreement. Article 12 of that agreement, which governs seniority, incorporates by reference the Respondent’s practice of basing seniority on an employee’s enter-on-duty (EOD) date, which, in turn, is directly affected by his test score, veterans’ status, final rating, and standing on the hiring register. Indeed, the Respondent essentially concedes the relevance of the information in its brief, stating that “[a]n existing employee who believed his EOD date should have preceded that of another employee because he had taken Test 473 on or before the other employee and had the same or higher final rating than that employee but was hired after him is authorized under Article 12 to request a correction of his seniority standing.”
We find that the Respondent has failed to establish the existence of a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest. The Respondent bases this defense solely on the argument that applicants (including those who became employees) would be sensitive to disclosure of their test results. Regardless of any such sensitivity, the record shows that applicants had no legitimate expectation that their test results would remain confidential. Rather, given the circumstances, they reasonably should have understood that disclosure could occur for various reasons, including proceedings before the Board. Both the Test 473 information package and answer sheets explicitly state that if applicants choose to provide personal information, including veterans’ points, the Respondent may disclose that information to a labor organization or Federal government agencies, such as the Board. Consistent with those statements, the Respondent’s privacy guide specifically provides that examination and placement records, the very information in dispute here, may be disclosed to a labor organization as required by law. There is no evidence that the Respondent made any contrary promises of confidentiality about test scores. Given all these factors, applicants would reasonably understand that disclosure would extend to all portions of their exams, including test results and final ratings. There is no record evidence that any applicant contested the scope or meaning of any of this disclosure language. Applicants who proceeded to furnish their personal information and complete the exam thus had no legitimate confidentiality interest in test results they knew were subject to disclosure to labor organizations. As the basis for the Respondent’s confidentiality arguments fails, we accordingly reject its defense.
Contrary to USPS’s argument, Detroit Edison, supra, does not support a contrary result. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the employer had a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest in the test scores of named applicants who took a psychological aptitude test. The employer in that case “administered the tests to applicants with the express commitment that each applicant’s test score would remain confidential.” Id. at 306. The Court described that commitment as a “promise of confidentiality to the examinees.” Id. at 317. Here, in contrast, USPS made no such promise. To the contrary, USPS expressly informed applicants about the possibility of disclosure to labor organizations in the information packet, on the answer sheet, and through its guide to privacy and the Freedom of Information Act, which is made available to the public.
For the reasons above, we adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union with the information it requested on January 30, 2008, regarding the 22 employees hired in 2007, including their test scores, veterans’ preference, final ratings, and register standing.
Postal Letter Carriers and Mail Handlers Get Wage Increase
Filed under: APWU, NALC, NPMHU, NRLCA, pay, postal, postal news, usps
The last general wage increase under the 2006 National Agreement for the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU) and the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) became effective on November 20, 2010.
NPMHU represented employees will receive a 1.2% increase. NALC represented employees will see a 1.85% raise in their paychecks. Both raises will be reflected in the paychecks issued on December 10, 2010.
APWU and Rural Carriers represented postal employees received their last wage increase under the current contract in November of 2009.
U.S. Postal Service Labor Negotiations Fact Sheet
Filed under: APWU, contract, NALC, NPMHU, NRLCA, postal, postal news
Overview
* The Postal Reorganization Act authorizes collective bargaining on wages and working conditions, generally under laws applying to private industry. As the Postal Service is an essential service to the nation’s economy, Congress mandated that employees represented by unions cannot strike. Impasses in collective bargaining negotiations may ultimately be resolved through arbitration.
Current Operating Environment
* Mail volume peaked at 213 billion in 2006. Since 2007 mail volume plummeted 35 billion pieces — 20 percent. By 2020, mail volume is expected to decline to 150 billion.
* Many mail processing plants previously operated three, eight hour shifts, seven-days-a-week. Today, many facilities have reduced operations to two eight-hour shifts operating five- or six-days a week.
* Seventy-eight percent of Postal Service costs are linked to wages and benefits.
* To remain relevant while meeting today’s changing mailing trends, the Postal Service must manage its labor costs by matching workforce to workload.
* The Postal Service’s goal is to negotiate a contract that’s fair to its customers and its employees while meeting its financial and operational needs.
Negotiations Process
The collective bargaining process for the Postal Service may entail a three-step process: negotiation, mediation and interest arbitration. The parties may negotiate a contract at any of the three steps in the process.
Step 1: The negotiations period begins approximately 90-days prior to the expiration of the contract. During this time, the parties try to reach agreement themselves. If they reach a tentative agreement, it must then be ratified by a vote of the union membership.
Step 2: If they cannot reach agreement, a federal mediator is appointed by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), unless both parties waive mediation. If no agreement is reached with the mediator, or if the parties waive mediation, the contract goes to impasse.
Step 3: The impasse proceeds to final and binding interest arbitration. In interest arbitration the dispute goes before a three-member panel. The panel consists of a neutral arbitrator serving as chairperson and two arbitrators representing each party. The neutral arbitrator may be selected by agreement of the parties, or from a list provided by the FMCS.
Employee Unions
Most hourly employees are represented by four unions. The American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO (APWU) represents employees who work as clerks, mechanics, vehicle drivers, custodians and some administrative positions. Employees represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC) deliver in metropolitan areas; National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association (NRLCA) employees deliver primarily in rural and suburban areas; and, employees represented by the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, AFL-CIO (NPMHU) work in mail processing plants and Post Offices.
Union Employees Contract Expiration
APWU 211,000 midnight, Nov. 20, 2010
NALC 207,000 midnight, Nov. 20, 2011
NRLCA 67,000 career
48,000 non-career midnight, Nov. 20, 2010
NPMHU 49,000 midnight, Nov. 20, 2011
In addition to the four major unions, five other bargaining units collectively cover more than 1,100 employees representing nurses, police officers, Information Technology and accounting services, headquarters maintenance employees and machinists.
Contract negotiations for the NRLCA begin Sept. 13, 2010. The NALC and NPMHU begin negotiations next year approximately 90-days prior to the contract expiration date.
Postal Worker Indicted For Falsifying Eligibility To Run In NALC Local Election
On August 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Sharron Dixon Haynes, aka Sharron A. Haynes, former election candidate of National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 217 (located in Jackson, Miss.), was indicted on three counts of making and causing to be made, and using and causing to be used, a false writing or document in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States Government.. Haynes is alleged to have submitted a false certification of her eligibility for election to Branch 217, which she knew falsely certified that she had not served as a supervisor within two years prior to October 2008, when in fact she had served as a supervisor in May 2008. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS New Orleans District Office.
Note previous OLMS investigation:
On March 31, 2009, the Secretary of Labor received a complaint alleging violations of Section 401 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), in the regularly scheduled election of officers conducted on December 11, 2008, by National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 217 in Jackson, Mississippi.
Pursuant to Sections 402 and 601 of the LMRDA, the Department of Labor conducted an investigation. The investigation disclosed that Branch 217 incumbent officers and candidates had unregulated access to voted ballots prior to the election; unvoted ballots were hand delivered to voters by a candidate with access to election materials; voted ballots were returned by hand instead of by mail; ineligible members were permitted to vote and a voter eligibility checklist was not used in the election; eligible members were denied the right to vote when their ballots were voided because the union sent reply envelopes that did not provide the necessary identifying information; candidates were denied the right to have observers at the counting of ballots; ballots were not properly counted resulting in incorrect candidates being installed in some trustee and delegate positions; and election records were not properly maintained.
Apprised of these findings, NALC Branch 217 agreed to conduct new nominations and a new election for the offices of vice president, treasurer, three trustees, and delegates to the NALC 2010 Mississippi State Convention under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with Title IV of the LMRDA. The agreed upon remedial election was concluded on September 3, 2009. It is, therefore,
DETERMINED, that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Title IV of the LMRDA occurred which may have affected the outcome of the election conducted by National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 217 on December 11, 2008, but that these violations have been remedied by the new election, conducted in accordance with Title IV of the LMRDA, under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, on September 3, 2009.
In other Department t of Labor, OLMS criminals actions:
On September 23, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Donald Kister, former President of National Postal Mail Handlers Local 307 (located in Detroit, MI), was charged in a two-count indictment with one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $4,137.35 between August 2006 and October 2007 and one count of making false statements. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Detroit District Office.
On September 1, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Mozelle E. Means-Swanson, former President of American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 7139 (located in Aurora, Ill.), pled guilty to one count of willfully failing to maintain union records. On May 6, 2009, Means-Swanson was indicted on one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $4,900. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Chicago District Office.
An indictment is a formal accusation or charge based on a finding by a Grand Jury that it is likely that the person charged committed the criminal offense described in the indictment and is the means by which an accused person (defendant) is brought to trial. An indictment raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
An information is a formal accusation of a crime by a government attorney rather than a Grand Jury. An information raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A charge is an accusation of criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Each count is a separate and distinct offense charged in an indictment or information.
A guilty plea is a defendant’s admission to the court that he or she committed the offense charged and an agreement to waive the right to a trial.
A conviction is a judgment based on a jury’s verdict, judge’s finding, or the defendant’s admission that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.
A sentence is a judicial determination of the punishment to be imposed on an individual who has plead guilty or has been convicted by a jury or judge of a criminal offense.
source: U.S. Department of Labor — Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) — OLMS Enforcement