Ted Keating, National President
Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President
Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer
Timothy May, NAPS General Counsel, Patton & Boggs
Charles Scialla, President, Scialla & Associates
NAPS National Executive Board Members

For the United States Postal Service:

George Butler, Chief Counsel, United States Postal Service
John Mularski, Manager, Complement, Staffing & Field Policy, USPS HQ
William T. Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration
Lee Olohan, Labor Relations Specialist

Item #1

In the announcement there is a description of those in the consolidated District’s eligible to retire. Does the term “eligible to retire” indicate VERA eligibility or eligibility to retire without penalty?

USPS Response:

The reference to eligible employees is a combination of employees eligible for regular/optional retirement and VERA.

Item #2

We are requesting, for our use as well as our field vice-presidents, a listing of all vacancies that exist in Customer Services operations that will serve as landing-zones for impacted employees. If there are different numbers for these two categories, what are they?

USPS Response:

This list is now being compiled at USPS Headquarters, it is not yet ready.

Item #3

We are requesting that official time be granted to all impacted employees to review the job listings of available vacant positions and the opportunity to complete their eCareer applications while on-duty.

USPS Response:

It was agreed that employees would be able to develop their eCareer data while on duty. NAPS asked that this information be given to the field in writing.

Non-Agenda Discussion:

USPS Chief Counsel Butler and John Mularski briefed NAPS about the methods that would be used in the RIF’s avoidance process. Phase One bidding would be in the remaining Districts and Phase two bidding would be within the new District boundaries for those Districts that are gaining additional territory.

NAPS Question:

NAPS asked for the definition of a competitive area?

USPS Response:

Using Central New Jersey as an example, this District has been abolished so there no longer is a competitive area in Central Jersey. In the first Phase both impacted and non-impacted employees will be allowed to bid in their competitive area to open up positions for posting in Phase Two.

NAPS Question:

NAPS asked why there would not be a retention register available early in the process so that people would know where they stood at the beginning of the process.
USPS Response:

The retention register has not yet been developed.

The Postal Service advised us that 204-B’s occupying vacant positions should be returned to their regular craft assignments.

ASP’s in Plants do not own a job and could be subjected to a RIF.

Several questions were posed by board members:

Question:

With Districts being abolished, the work is migrating to new Districts but this will not be completed until August, 2009. How an it be that the competitive areas are gone now?

USPS Response:

It is considered that the Districts that have been eliminated are no longer competitive areas even though the job of migrating the work will take several months.

Question:

When the announcement was made that the Postal service was instituting these changes why wasn’t documentation available to NAPS?

USPS Response:

The documentation is still in the process of development.Question:

When will the documents be available?

USPS Response:

They (documents) are still being developed. We do not have the information at this time.
Question:

How did the Postal Service determine the new levels in the Plants for MDO’s and what happens to individuals who are impacted?

USPS Response:

The new formula was used to determine the number of MDO’s and new positions will be posted in Phase One and the remainder of the positions that are available in the Plants will be presented for application in Phase Two.

Item #4

We request to be briefed on the plans of the USPS to provide specific on-the-job or classroom training to individuals who will be crossing over from either support or processing positions to vacancies in customer services.

USPS Response:

Employee Development at USPS HQ is now in the process of developing all training for individuals who need classroom and computer-based training.The training that is under review/development is expected to be available by the end of Phase two of the bidding process.

Item #5

In instances were you have a District who is absorbing the staff of an abolished District and the remaining District is also losing some of their staff, how is the bidding going to be accomplished with respect to preference of bidding.

Will the remaining Districts be able to bid only on positions within the former District lines or will they be able to bid throughout the newly formed District territory?

Also, in the six Districts that have been abolished, when will these impacted employees be able to compete for available positions, before, during or after the first round?

USPS Response:

In the losing Districts that are being split up into other existing Districts, impacted employees should be able to apply for positions in Phase Two of the process in either one or the other Districts that assumed the territory.

Item #6

Since these changes are occurring at the mid-year of the current NPA process, what plans are being prepared to generate new goals for impacted EAS and to update their profiles in the Performance Evaluation System?

USPS Response:

The mid-year reviews are based on the position of record on March 27, 2009. After this date, should an employee change positions the new position would be the one in which they would be evaluated at the end of the fiscal year.

NAPS asked what would occur with all of the new positions that have been created in Maintenance. The USPS responded that individuals who attained these positions would be required to update their profiles and goals in the PES system after they assume the new positions.

Item #7

NAPS has previously expressed to Bill Jones our position on the impact on EAS employees in Plant operations, particularly those EAS employees whose positions may not be directly impacted by the staffing reductions brought forward by the change in the EAS to craft ratios and the fact that they are the “owners” of current positions, a position that we have long held and that has been supported by the Postal Service for many years.

It is our position that EAS employees who are currently in bid positions that are not impacted by the staffing changes should not be required to apply for consideration for their current position.
Due to the consolidation of Tour Two operations concurrent with the staffing ratio changes, there may be some situations where slight schedule adjustments may be required but the changes in time do not change the basic duties of the position; i.e. automation, flat operations, platform operations, etc.

We are concerned that it has already been discussed at the District level that all positions would be placed into a pool and that all EAS employees in Processing & Distribution would be required to re-bid their positions. Application for positions should be limited to those individuals whose positions are impacted by tour compressions.

USPS Response:

There will not be postings of positions in Plants for positions that do not change. RIF’s placement policies would be used if there were excess supervisors.NAPS requested that this information be provided in writing as there is a lot of confusion in the field on how to staff Plant operations.

Item #8

When the Plants are working out the details to re-staff line supervisory positions, every effort should be made to “slot” current position holders into the new EAS assignments in the Plant to minimize the disruption to their personal lives.

Unbeknownst to many is the fact that our members are in their current positions, for the most part, by choice and the need to hold that schedule due to family matters and other requirements.

While some may believe that re-bidding all the positions in our Plants would be a simple way to realign EAS staffing. We believe that offering open positions to impacted employees while, at the same time, keeping as many EAS supervisors in their current positions will be less stressful and will still satisfy the needs that the USPS has to properly balance EAS staffing in our facilities.

USPS Response:

The Postal Service agrees with NAPS’ position on this matter.
Item #9

We have received word from the field that there are significant changes in the structure of the maintenance group that NAPS has not been briefed on. We again request that NAPS be briefed in advance of announcements on organizational changes that are provided in our rights under Title 39.

USPS Response:

Michael Rogers – Maintenance, Group Leader, and Performance Management joined the group for this portion of the meeting.

Mike stated that the USPS has been reviewing these changes for the past 18 months and that the current financial condition of the USPS caused the changes to be rolled out at this time. Many of the changes were made after field review and recommendations.

NAPS asked why our organization was not consulted about these changes especially when the review was for such an extended amount of time. (18 months)

The Postal Service responded that they did not have an explanation why NAPS had not been consulted with about these changes.

NAPS asked if RIF’s avoidance was going to be employed in Maintenance. USPS responded that they would be addressing this when we got to that section later in our schedule.

NAPS asked why the changes were made in the manner that they were. The USPS responded that the changes made operational sense and that there were no changes in the operations side, only in the support side of maintenance.

NAPS asked what would happen to maintenance positions in Customer Services operations (Post Offices). The USPS responded that these changes would not impact maintenance positions in Post Offices.

NAPS asked where the jobs descriptions were for these positions. The USPS responded that they were in the process of being developed and would be available tomorrow (NAPS ended up getting them the following week). Item #10

We have received inquiries from members in the field who work in the Environmental positions current domiciled in the Area. We believe that we represent these individuals as they were formerly District employees prior to their reassignment to the Area offices.

They are now being advised that their positions are going to report to Headquarters. We would like to have all the information on the future of these positions provided to us.

USPS Response:

The USPS will provide a letter that advises these individuals that they will maintain their right to NAPS representation when their position becomes a HQ positions.

Item #11

We received information via telephone of the decision to change the reporting relationship of the Business Development Teams from the District to Headquarters. The individuals impacted by this change were notified of this decision three days prior to NAPS being contacted via telephone.

NAPS request a full briefing on this change as well as the plans that are being made to restructure Sales. We also want to meet to discuss the changes that have been promised in NPA for 2009.

USPS Response

The 90 day sales blitz that the Sales group has been undertaking is considered to be very successful so far. In the case of the BDT members, no one has been required to bid a position, they have simply migrated to a HQ reporting structure and they are not impacted by the current consolidations.

In the next several weeks a meeting will be held with VP Labor Relations, Doug Tulino, Sales VP Susan Plonkey and NAPS to discuss the anticipated changes in Sales.

Item #12

With the impending VER offered to 150,000 eligible employees, including many of our members, NAPS requests that provisions be made available to pro-rate the 2009 NPA payouts to EAS employees who are assisting the Postal Service’s efforts to reduce employees when they leave prior to the end of the fiscal year.

USPS Response:

The Postal Service expects to continue to utilize the same provisions that call for payment of NPA for those individuals who are working throughout the entire fiscal year. There cannot be a pro-rating of NPA payments for individuals who do not work throughout the fiscal year.

Pending Items

1. NAPS has been hearing complaints that the NPA process has not been properly followed by several field managers and believe that someone other than the immediate manager must review the process. After review by the immediate supervisor, the rating still is in question, the immediate manager will review the rating and if that rating is still lowered, a qualified written response explaining the reason must be provided.

If no agreement can be reached between the parties, an independent method of decision with regards to the process will be established.

NAPS explained in detail the problems that are occurring in the field. There are managers who are arbitrarily changing goals at the mid-year point just because they do not like the goals that were given at the start of the year.

NAPS also provided feedback that when our members receive exceptional contributor ratings, the ratings are lowered by the PCES installation head and there is no response from that individual as to why the lowered the ranking.

Also, there are instances occurring where individuals get a high-contributor rating that a second level manager arbitrarily reduces to a contributor rating. (3-11-09)

USPS Response:

A meeting has been scheduled between the USPS and the three management associations on April 14, 2009 to discuss these issues.

2. A supervisor in the NY Metro Area was assigned to two offices during the evaluation period. The first office he was assigned for four months. Following the four month assignment, the supervisor was then assigned to another station for the remainder of the year. Documentation in the file indicates that his consecutive details were four months and eight months in length.

However, in the PFP system the record indicates that his duty at the offices was seven months in the first assignment followed by five months in the second assignment. The PFP record indicates this 7/5 split rather than a 4/8 due to the fact that the supervisor was not able to change his assignment in the PFP system until after he was in his second detail assignment for three months as he did not get information from his immediate manager in his second assignment until the later date. The PFP system did not allow him to change the dates of his detail assignments when he attempted to enter the change in assignment back to the date that the assignment started.

When computations for the year were completed in PFP for the end of the year, the fact that the PFP system gave the supervisor a split of assignments as 7/5 rather than 4/8 in his two assignments, his final rating was lowered by a full box impacting his salary. When the supervisor attempted to have this resolved at both the District and Area level, both responses were that they were unable to make this type of correction in the PFP system.

NAPS is requesting that this problem be investigated at the national and that the dates of the detail assignments be corrected in the PFP system which will ultimately result in a correct NPA payout. (3-11-09 Agenda)

3. Since the original announcement of changes in the Sales organization we have not had any interim updates on the progress of the restructuring and the impact that it will have on our members. Since the former NPA program is no longer in effect for the Sales group, we would like to discuss how the future plans and restructuring are progressing and provide our input into the development of changes in Sales and NPA for Sales. (3-11-09)

USPS Response:

This issue will be discussed at the next meeting between NAPS and Sales to be scheduled shortly. (See item 11)

4. NAPS requested to be provided with the levels of the over 900 postmaster positions that are now being vacated due to the acceptance of the VERA by current postmasters. The USPS will provide this information as soon as it is available. (3-11-09)

USPS Response:

This information will be provided as soon as the information is compiled.

5. There have been problems with delays in decisions from management officials in ELM 650 cases. Management stated at our January meeting that this matter would be discussed at a future meeting of Area level H/R managers. (3-11-09)

USPS Response:

The USPS had intended to already hold a meeting on this issue as we want to discuss ELM 650 changes. The recent issues with the restructuring have delayed the scheduling of this meeting.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 9th, 2009 at 11:51 am and is filed under NAPS, postal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.