Executive Board Members,

We would like to update you on the status of our efforts to resolve the problems that we have with the Postal Service’s consolidation of Districts, their implementation of RIF avoidance and the changes that have been announced in the Plants across the country.

On April 7, 2009, our headquarters office advised the Postal Service, in writing, of our objections to the revised timeline that the Postal Service offered at our board meeting last week. We also advised the Postal Service that we intend to fully exercise our consultative rights under Title 39, in all of their announced plans.

It is our expectation that the Postal Service will provide NAPS with the opportunity to review all of the consolidation plans of the Postal Service and for NAPS to be able to offer alternatives to their plans within the scope of our right for consultation and then receive a written response following our consultations.

We have not received a response from the Postal Service to our position letter, and we are awaiting a reply. As soon as further information is available we will let you know.

NAPS Headquarters

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.

NAPS Headquarters was advised today that the announcements that we have been anticipating for some time on District changes will be made formally at 12:00 noon on Friday (tomorrow).

This morning NAPS Headquarters participated in two meetings with the USPS at L’Enfant Plaza. The first meeting dealt with tomorrow’s announcement of changes in EAS staffing in Plant operations. The full details of Function One changes will be provided tomorrow in a USPS Newsbreak.

The second meeting was with the Postmaster General and all of the unions and management associations. The discussion centered on current legislation which would modify the pre-funding of retiree health benefits. All of the unions and management associations are supporting this legislation. 03-19-09

The USPS has requested that NAPS attend a briefing at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 19th at 9:00 a.m., at USPS Headquarters. It is expected that the USPS will announce the changes that they have been planning; including District consolidations and Plant changes. As soon as information is provided to NAPS the information will be sent out to the Executive Board.

In anticipation of this meeting, there may be an increase in rumors of the expected changes. NAPS Headquarters will disseminate all of the official and accurate information once we receive it from our meeting with the USPS. As soon as the meeting adjourns we will pass the information first through our email network to our regional and area vice presidents and then on to our breaking news section on the NAPS website.

February 11 2009

Mr. Patrick Donahoe
Deputy Postmaster General & COO
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza SW
Washington DC 20260-0050

Pat:

I am requesting the immediate removal of Western Area Vice President Sylvester Black and Dakotas District Manager Clem Felchle for inappropriate and inflammatory remarks on Telecons last week.

Those remarks were:

“Some managers ought to be taken out and executed.”

The word “executed” was used more than once.

My question to you today Pat is, what would have happened to a supervisor or postmaster who made similar remarks about craft employees during a service talk? I think we both know the answer to that question.

As we fight for the very survival of the Postal Service, this type of conduct by senior officers cannot be tolerated.

I have on numerous occasions complained to you about the conduct and language used on these Telecons. As Chief Operating Officer of the USPS you have a responsibility to take action.

Sincerely,

Ted Keating

President

Original document at NAPS.org

NAPS Headquarters today requested our attorneys to prepare a lawsuit against the Postal Service on the representation of EAS employees.

One issue behind the lawsuit is the denial of NAPS representation to our EAS employees at Shared Services in Greensboro. 02/04/09

Representing NAPS:

Ted Keating, National President
Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President
Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer

Representing NAPUS:

Dale Goff, National President
Wayne Orshak, Secretary/Treasurer
Ken Engstrom, Executive Director

Representing the National League of Postmasters

Charley Mapa, National President
Mark Strong, Executive Vice President

Representing the USPS

Tony Vegliante, Chief Human Resource Officer & Executive VP
Doug Tulino, VP Labor Relations
Bill Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration
Mangala Gandi, Manager, Selection, Evaluation, Recognition
Robin McLarney, Manager, Performance Evaluation Programs
Tom Henry, Manager, Field OPS Requirements/Planning
Susan Albro. Operations Performance Analyst
Lee Ann Olohan, Labor Relations Specialist

Doug Tulino requested that the management organizations give an opening statement about the meeting. President Keating responded that the management organizations had provided a comprehensive list of issues to the USPS on Friday, January 9, 2008 and wanted to get responses.

President Mapa stated that this was an important meeting and that the points that we wanted to make related to the compliance of the USPS with Title 39 and our Consultative rights. Mapa read an excerpt from Title 39; the management organizations are entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees.

Doug Tulino responded that we weren’t here to discuss the management association’s rights under Title 39 but that the USPS stands ready to meet with the management associations relative to NPA.

Mark Strong stated that there is a lack of understanding in the field relative to NPA and that the leadership of the management association wants the program and the process to work. Last year NAPUS and the LEAGUE submitted numerous recommendations to improve NPA but the recommendations were never discussed with the management associations and summarily were not included in the NPA roll-out for 2009.

Tom Henry responded that the officers of the USPS were given the same opportunities as the management associations to provide feedback and to review the working product of the developers at USPS HQ. The field had approximately 30 days to review and to respond to the proposals.

The management association’s response to this statement was that the process that was outlined did not constitute consultations as per Title 39. Tulino added that the USPS had to meet with the management associations and that he is making a commitment that this will happen in the upcoming NPA development. The management association’s response was that we have heard this before. Tulino responded again that meetings would be held and that they will commence in March and the management associations would be at the table.

At this point, we agreed to get into the agenda that we sent to the Postal Service on January 9, 2009:

2008 NPA Issues – NAPS/NAPUS/LEAGUE

Under the provisions of 39 USC – Section 1004, the management organizations are entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and
other managerial employees.

As you are well aware, the management organizations have several long-standing issues with the NPA program that we have attempted to resolve on an annual basis. Unfortunately, to date our recommendations and repeated requests for changes in the NPA program have gone unheeded. As the management associations have done in the past, we have not just identified problems; we also have recommended solutions to the problems.

While it remains our desire to resolve these issues internally, and is the reason why we are meeting with you, we stand ready to use any and all resources at our disposal to resolve these matters through outside intervention if necessary.

Annual Development of the NPA Program for EAS Employees

The Postal Service has failed to comply with Title 39 by not inviting the management organizations to participate at the beginning of the process to jointly develop the criteria for the use of measurement systems, assignment of targets and to develop an NPA system that will benefit the Postal Service and drive performance.

Each year, the management associations have made individual and collective requests for consultative meetings with the NPA developers through our contact with Labor Relations, Policy Administration. Instead of meeting directly with the NPA developers, the management associations were relegated receiving emails concerning NPA development with Labor Relations, Policy Administration staff members.

We were never consulted during the development process and only received final drafts through intermediaries. The management association’s recommendations that were made, not at meetings, but again through emails, were summarily ignored as the decisions on the programs were already made and the interaction with the management associations was only an afterthought.

The USPS has failed to provide the management associations with their Consultative rights under Title 39, with respect to NPA and failed to provide the management organizations opportunities to meet with the NPA developers to provide feedback and recommendations to the plans that eventually become our pay program each year.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution:

That the management associations be invited to participate in Consultative Meetings with the individuals from the Postal Service who are tasked with NPA development at the outset of planning for the next fiscal year.

Postal Service’s Response:

The USPS agreed that they would meet with the management associations at the front of the annual development process to include the management associations in the development of the NPA program for the upcoming year.

Failure of the Field to Comply With Administrative Rules

The field is expected to comply with the Administrative Rules for the establishment of Core goals for EAS employees. This includes having an interactive process in the establishment of Core goals. We have continually brought to the Postal Service’s attention the fact that management is violating one of the key principles of goal development and are, in many cases, having their goals sent to them via email, or are having their goals taped to their computer terminal screens.

In many instances, these tactics are employed at the last minute and our members have less than 24 hours to input the information without recourse to an interactive meeting.

At our last Pay Consultations, NAPS recommended that the PES system be modified to include “question” pages that would query participants whether or not they had an interactive meeting at the stat of the year, that they had a mid-year meeting and that they held an end-of-year meeting with their immediate manager.

The USPS response to our suggestion was that the cost to make these program changes could not be implemented because the recommendation was cost-prohibitive. After continual complaints by NAPS, a letter was issued about this problem, but it was sent to the field following the closing of the input of the 2009 Core goal process.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Require that the field comply with all provisions of the Administrative Rules. Implement our recommendation of the questions in the PES to provide additional incentive for the compliance with Administrative Rules.

Discussion on the topic:

The USPS admitted that there are problems with the compliance to the administrative rules in the field and also stated that when the management associations bring these violations to management’s attention at HQ’s that the problem is investigated and remedied when necessary.

The management associations also stated that at this point in the maturity of NPA, that we should not be having to go to USPS HQ with some of these problems and that if the field knew that they couldn’t violate the rules and that there would be consequences if they did, that the violations would go down.

The USPS asked how we (management associations would resolve these problems). The management associations recommended the “one box” reductions in the evaluator’s scores for not following the administrative rules. This was rumored to be implemented, but it never was. Management advised that they would look into this recommendation.

Management also agreed that they would improve the communications to the field in making certain that the field is reminded about the requirements for interactive meetings at the goal development phase, the mid-year and the end-of-year processes.

Changes in NPA during the Year

In just one example; in early 2008, the Board of Governors determined that the service standards established for First Class Mail, standards that are the basis for Corporate Goals in NPA, were set too low by the Postal Service.

As a result of the Board of Governor’s opinion on service standards, the Postal Service arbitrarily changed the corporate goals for overnight, two-day and three-day First Class Mail performance that negatively impacted NPA for EAS employees.

In implementing these changes, the Postal service neglected to meet their obligations to consult with the management associations. While the Board of Governor’s should be able to maintain the right to change the performance expectations of the Postal Service, their decision should not have impacted the measurement of Pay-For-Performance for EAS employees which had already been established for FY 2008.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution
That the Postal Service re-calculate the NPA for corporate measurements for FY 2008 based on the established goals set by the Postal Service and input into the PES system for all EAS employees and not use the service standard goals that were set by the Board of Governors that the Postal Service failed to consult with the management associations prior to the changes being implemented.

Discussion on Topic:

The USPS stated that the Board of Governors reviewed the 2008 NPA targets for Corporate and felt that the service standard targets that were set for FY 2008 were not including any continuous improvement as the USPS had already achieved the goals for FY 2007 that were set for FY 2008.

The USPS reminded us that nationally that the company made their service targets for overnight two and three day so the Board of Governors was correct in their assessment and changes that they made in the service standards.

The management associations explained in-depth their objections to the budget flexes that are made during the year and then especially at the end-of-year that severely impact individuals who had otherwise outstanding performance over the entire year.

The management associations recommended that the USPS look at NPA assessment through goals that measure earned hours. Earned hours as a measurement tool would take into consideration volume fluctuations and would take some of the weird science that is employed with the budget flexes that the field is on the receiving end of now.

Management responded that there was merit in the proposal that was made by the management associations and would speak to the specialists to see if something could be done to implement these recommendations for the current FY (2009).

Changes in Goals – Sales

In the spring of 2008, it was brought to NAPS’ attention that members in Sales found that several of their goals were arbitrarily changed without notifying them. NAPS also was not consulted on these changes.

The only reason that our members in Sales found out about these surreptitious changes was that their relative scores were reduced on their monthly evaluations. Once the members went into the system to determine why their coring was lower than they had been expecting during the months (April, May, 2008) where our members found that these arbitrary changes were placed into their portfolio measurements.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Since Sales did not consult with NAPS or notify the members of these changes that negatively impacted our members’ NPA, that the Postal Service revert the measurement of our members performance back to the former targets (prior to the changes) and that adjustments be implemented to the former measurements.

Discussion on Topic:

Management responded that they would discuss this matter with NAPS at a separate meeting.

Change in Use of Lead Finance Numbers for Unit Goals/Targets

For the first time in FY 2008, stations/branches and other operations started to have their unit goals measured to their individual finance number level. This was a dramatic change from all of the prior years of NPA. It was also dramatic as NAPS, NAPUS and the League were unaware that this change was implemented.

Management failed to consult with the management organizations on this change that drastically alters the evaluations of operations that formerly were grouped together for unit measurement under a “lead” finance number.

In a Consultative Meeting between NAPS and the Postal Service on December 8, 2008, NAPS brought this issue forward as a discussion item. Tom Henry, representing PES for the USPS advised us that shortly after his arrival in the department in early (March) 2008 that he “found” this change in the system and did some research to determine how it occurred. In his research he stated that this is what the officers wanted to do, but he did not relate to NAPS that the organization was ever consulted on this change.

Both NAPUS and the League also had no prior information relative to this change and their members in the field were also surprised when the evaluations came out to the unit finance number level instead of the lead finance number.

The internal research that Tom Henry conducted at USPS HQ was concluded in April, 2008. It was determined by the Postal Service that this was the way that unit goals would be measured. The management associations were not consulted about this change and only became aware of the changes when our members were in the process of completing their end-of-year assessments.

The management associations have two problems with this change. First, we were not consulted and second, it is just a bad idea. If we had been consulted on this change, we would have never agreed to it.

We would have pointed out that resources in the field, especially in a Post Office/Station environment, are shared between offices in order to meet operational needs. This change to measurement down to the finance number level “rewards” offices that needed help and were assisted by lower cost employees, and punishes offices that gave up lower cost employees to other offices and used higher cost overtime to meet operational objectives.

Operations managers in the field were even unaware of this change during the year and they managed their operations as they have done in prior years, moving resources from operation (office) to operation as the needs arose.

On January, 6, 2009, at a meeting at NAPS HQ, Bill Jones advised NAPS that the practice of measuring offices at their finance number would continue and that the remedy to ensure that office who shared resources completed workhour transfers in TACS to re-allocate the workhours to the proper finance number when resources are shared.

The management associations believe that this is a bad idea, for managers and supervisors to arbitrarily transfer hours from their finance number and operations to other finance numbers and operations. The practice of transferring hours is not always accurate, is time consuming and would be unnecessary if the Postal Service simply reverted back to the former system.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Due to the failure of the Postal Service to consult with the management associations on the change in unit measurement down to the unit finance number level, that the FY 2008 NPA be recomputed back to the lead finance number level and that the Postal service abandon this counterproductive measurement that would cause chaos in daily operations in the field.

Consideration should be given to having Post Office retail revenue calculated at a POOM level rather than to the individual finance number to create more teamwork on revenue generation.

Discussion on Topic:

The management associations brought forward several examples of what measuring performance down to the finance number does, including a postmaster taking transitional carriers from one station and moving them to another station and back-filling the losing office with overtime letter carriers. The office that gave up the lower cost employees suffers while the office with the “loaned” employees benefits with lower cost workhour usage.

Management responded that while they would not go back into the system to bring the tracking of performance that was made to the finance number level back to the lead finance number level they did state that they would consider the management associations recommendation to bring the measurement of unit scores back to the lead finance number in cases where they were changed for 2008. Once the issue is reviewed fully at USPS HQ, they will get back to the management associations to determine the course of action for FY 2009.

End-Of-Year NPA Processes

At the end of the FY 2008 NPA process, NAPS brought to the Postal service’s attention that some of our members were arbitrarily having the Core goal results lowered by reviewing officials. While the Postal Service did take action to correct a few of these cases, there were many instances where the Postal Service did not take the actions we requested or where the member did not file an objection to the arbitrary lowering of their Core goal results.

Some of these arbitrary changes went beyond the normal review process where senior managers are required to review ratings of non-contributor or exceptional contributor and there were cases where individuals who attained high-contributor status had their results arbitrarily lowered by a second-level review.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

More reliance has to be placed on the evaluations that are completed by the immediate manager so that if there are discrepancies in the ratings from the initial level meeting that they will be resolved at the initial level.

We have documented cases where PCES managers who were not even in the same District as our member during the evaluation period, arbitrarily reduced evaluations.
In other instances, PCES managers who left the District during the evaluation period were still reducing evaluations from immediate evaluators in their former Districts.

Second level evaluators should not have the ability to change (reduce) evaluations that are at the high-contributor level to contributor level. It is the function of the immediate manager to review the accomplishments of the employee and make the determination of the scoring. The immediate manager is more knowledgeable of the performance of the employee and is in the best position to evaluate that performance.

Management should maintain the oversight of non-contributor and exceptional contributor, but additional requirements must be placed on the PCES manager to document reductions of scores from exceptional contributor.

Discussion on Topic:

The USPS agreed that additional emphasis has to be placed on following the Administrative Rules for closing out the FY. Management believes that a renewed effort in working with the management associations in the entire NPA process will result in FY 2009.

Management committed to working closer with the management organizations in the adherence to the Administrative Rules and in keeping all of the management organizations involved in the NPA process in the future.

The meeting concluded at 12:10 p.m.

December 1, 2008 – Through the effort of NAPS in the Consultative Process and the cooperation of The United States Postal Service, a change is being made today to the FY 2009 NPA Core Requirements:

“Reduce Sick Leave Usage” will be removed as an option for employees when selecting Core Requirements. This Core Requirement is being removed at the request of and through the Consultative process with NAPS.

Employees who selected this Core Requirement will be notified via email that their Core Requirements have been returned and they will need to select a different Core Requirement. The Postal Service will provide additional information on how to change your selection of Core Goals due to the removal of Sick Leave as a Core Goal.

For the Management Associations:

Ted Keating, President, NAPS
Dale Goff, President, NAPUS
Charley Mapa, President, League
Louis Atkins, Executive VP, NAPS
Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer NAPS

For the Postal Service

Doug Tulino, Vice President, Labor Relations
Bill Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration

The postmaster associations provided a response to an inquiry that had been made by the Postal Service to forgo the use of postmaster’s convention leave. The postmaster’s organizations responded that they would not give up their rights to convention leave and recommended that the use of convention leave be extended to NAPS.

The management then asked for information from the recent agreement between the NALC and the Postal Service concerning route evaluations.

The Postal Service responded that the goal of this agreement was to ultimately reduce the cost of delivery through the changes in the route evaluation process. In a change from the current method of route evaluations, the adjustments to routes will be data driven through the use of eight weeks of information from current computerized systems. The evaluations will be conducted jointly between the NALC and the Postal Service. The results of this agreement will significantly reduce and eliminate the costs that are involved in the current process.

The management associations then requested information on an email that has been circulating around the country that contained information allegedly from the Board of Governors Meeting last week concerning District Support positions reverting to a Shared Services environment.

The Postal Service responded that this information was not valid.

The management association then questioned the fact that there were numerous rumors in the field about changes that impact individuals represented by one or more of the management associations.

The management associations recommended that any plans by the Postal Service that impacted our members be shared immediately with the management associations as soon as possible.

Management responded that they would provide information on any plans on organizational changes when they are developed.

The management organizations asked again if there were any plans to consolidate Area or Districts and the response was that there were no plans at this time, but that this could change at some later date.

The management organizations asked if there was a national policy that is driving the consolidations of Tour Two operations in Plants across the country. NAPS brought out that there are different plans that have been related to NAPS Headquarters that include some Plants placing all EAS positions on all Tours up for competitive bidding as a result of the elimination of Tour Two operations.

NAPS stated its’ position that supervisor on Tour Three and Tour One should not be impacted by the abolishment of Tour Two operations and that supervisors who had bid positions on Tour Three and Tour One should not have to bid for the positions that they are already in and own.

Management responded that there is not a mandate for the field to adopt a strategy to eliminate Tour Two operations but that there were instructions given to review volumes, equipment staffing and all factors to determine the best use of resources. Once these reviews have been completed then a course of action should be taken on a Plant by Plant basis.

Management also did not believe that wholesale bidding should result from the Tour Two consolidations. Management also responded that they will review the applicable rules that already are in place on how to handle this type of consolidation and will share this information with the management associations.

NAPS replied that with the move to initiate 10 hour/4 day workweeks that the time may have come to look to initiate this type of scheduling with EAS employees as we do not have contractual restrictions on this type of schedule.

Management responded that they are still in negotiations with the APWU and MHU to develop new criteria to accomplish these schedules, and took NAPS’ recommendations under advisement.

Management then asked for a response from all three management organizations on the Postal Service’s request to defer or forgo the payment of NPA for the recently completed FY.

The management organizations provided a written response and also provided the following comments:

The management organizations stated that it would not be in the best interest of their membership to agree with the request. The overwhelming feedback from all of the members of the three management organizations was that the membership’s performance in the PFP system needs to be maintained and that they payouts cannot be stopped.

The meeting concluded at 1:15 p.m.

The three postal management organizations today informed the Postal Service that they will not agree to either forego or defer the upcoming NPA payouts scheduled for January 2009.

During a meeting with the Postal Service and in a joint letter, the presidents of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the National League of Postmasters advised the Postal Service that USPS did not have the right “to demand that we re-open pay consultations or change the pay agreement in any way.“

The management organizations indicated that the overwhelming feedback received from their members supported retention of the financial recognition of supervisor and postmaster performance, scheduled for January 2009, and that the payouts cannot be stopped.

Meeting discussions, as recorded in the meeting minutes, also covered the recent NALC agreement on route evaluations, District Support positions, Area and District consolidations, Tour Two plant operations and 10 hour/4 day workweeks

The management groups reaffirmed their commitment to continue to collaborate with the Postal Service on cost reduction efforts in accord with the organization’s mission, and the groups underscored their readiness to support legislative changes that reduce the financial burdens of the Postal Service.

Postmaster General Jack Potter in a Washington Post interview today acknowledged ongoing talks with Capitol Hill to adjust the timing of the Postal Service’s payment of $5.4B in future retiree health benefit costs, an obligation imposed by the Postal Act of 2006. “It requires the Postal Service today to pay approximately 10 percent of every dollar we take in toward retiree health benefits,” Potter said.

Bruce Moyer
NAPS Legislative Counsel