Arbitrator Dana Edward Eischen’s decision on the merits of the NRLCA’s national “fletters” grievance:

As I understand it, the Association’s fundamental position is that the language of P0-603 Chapter 2, §212.13, 212.2,222 and 223, supra, and “past practice” thereunder, evidence a mutual intent of the parties, albeit by implication, that the Postal Service is contractually barred from presenting to rural carriers for casing Post-Wells machine -processed “fletters” which are “commingled” in flat tubs with other machine-processed flat-sized mail pieces. [Handbook P0-603 was jointly adopted by the parties in June 1991, as the successor to I-Handbook M 37, issued in May 1983. That handbook, in Sections 211,222 and 223, described the letter and flat presentation and casing provisions in virtually identical language to that in P0-603. (Postal Service Exhibit 7.) The prior version of Handbook M 37 was issued in December 1965 and likewise contains the same letter and flat presentation and casing requirements. (Postal Service Exhibit 8.)].

Critical to the Association’s “inside baseball” theory of the case are assertions and demonstrations by NRLCA witnesses that the Postal Service effectively prevents the rural carrier from complying with the requirements of Sections 212, 222, and 223 of the P0-603,which prescribe in detail the presentation of letter and flat mail to rural carriers and the casing of such mail by the carriers, when it continues to present Post-Wells letter-sized “fletters” to rural carriers in flat tubs with machine-processed flat-sized mail. Specifically, the Association witnesses described and demonstrated their understanding and belief that, subsequent to February 3, 2002, rural carriers, using the “taco” method set forth in the rural carrier training materials and taught in the Rural Carrier Academies, cannot possibly comply with the precise and exacting letter casing technique required by Section 222 when “fletters” are presented to them in flat tubs commingled with machine- processed flats, rather than separately in the “raw letter” stream.

Both such demonstrations by NRLCA involved “double-handling”. In the first one a carrier threw the pieces up to 61/8 inches to the side while he cased flats; while in the Association’s second demonstration, the carrier lifted letters out of the cupped flats, put the next flat on top of the “taco” and replaced the letters inside the “cradle” created by the cupped flats. (Tr. 50-51 and Tr. 118-121). However, the Association’s theses regarding the necessity of”double-handling” in the “taco-method” and the “impossibility” of compliance with Chapter 2 of the P0-603, were effectively rebutted by countervailing descriptions and demonstrations of alternative casing methods by Postal Service witnesses; both of which are casing methods consistent with Chapter 2, §222 and 223 and specifically endorsed and taught to rural carriers in Rural Carrier Academy training materials.

One such method demonstrated by a Postal Service witness allows a carrier to case flats and letters continuously without pausing to set pieces aside or to pull letters out of the case once placed within the cup formed by the large flats. (Tr. 258-59). See also, Instructor’s Guide. Standard Training Program for Rural Letter Carriers, Course 4450300, “Second Flats Receipt - Ml Cases”. at 6A-9 (Mar. 199 1) (NRLCA Exh. 7). The second method demonstrated by the Postal Service witnesses is informally referred to as the “stand-up” method, and it also is referenced in the both versions of postal training material adduced by the NRLCA. See, standard Training Program for Rural Carriers. Course 44503-00, The Rural Carrier Case, ‘Casing Flats,” at 5,2.2 (June 12, 2003) (stating that “Carriers who case flats standing up, should case the flat mail to the right of the case separation.”) (NRLCA 5); See also, Guidelines for Rural Carriers in the United States Postal Service, The Rural Carrier Case, “Casing Flats,” at 5.2.1-5.2.2 (Aug. 22, 2005) (stating that “Carriers who case flats standing up, should case the flat mail to the right of the case separation.”) (NRLCA 6). In the “stand-up” method of casing, rather than “cup” large flats, a carrier puts them in the separation for each address so that the short side of the flat is roughly parallel to the separation. When the carrier comes to a letter, it is cased in front of the fiats, and subsequent flats are cased behind preceding flats, a technique which apparently improves the efficiency of “pull down”, i.e., the process of removing the letter and flat mail from the individual separation and placing it in a container which is then taken to the carriers vehicle. (Tr. 275-276 and Tr. 277-79).

In my considered judgement, the Association failed to carry its burden of persuasion that the Postal Service is violating Article 19 and Chapter 2, §2 12.13, 212.2,222 and 223 of the P0-603, on and after February 3, 2002, in the facts and circumstances presented on the record before me in this case. Certainly nothing in the literal language of §212 of P0-603 Chapter 2 establishes an express bar or prohibition on the Postal Service’s machine-processing of Post-Wells 5 to 6 1/8 sized “fletters” on the AFSM 100 or UFSM 1000 flat-sorting machines or a contractual commitment to present such “fletters” for casing exclusively in the “raw letter stream”. Nor does the record demonstrate an implicit mutual intent of the parties to be bound by such a bar or commitment by persuasive evidence of an openly acknowledged, mutually recognized and consistently applied longstanding “past practice”. Finally, the Association failed to establish by a preponderance of the record evidence its primary premise that continued machine-processing of Post-Wells 5 to 6 1/8 sized “fletters” on the AFSM 100 or UFSM 1000 flat-sorting machines and presentation of Post Wells “fletters” in flat tubs requires “double-handling” during the “taco-method” of casing, thereby making compliance with the requirements of Chapter 2, § 222 and 223 of the P0-603 virtually “impossible”.

Based upon all of the foregoing, the grievance in National Arbitration Case No. QOOR-4Q-C 03089889 is denied.