December 2, 2020 TO: All Local Union Presidents All National RI-399 Advocates All National/Regional CAD FROM: Paul V. Hogrogian, National President Teresa Harmon, Manager, CAD RE: Arbitrator Sharnoff’s Decision in SPSS Merits Dispute Attached is a copy of National Arbitrator Sharnoff’s decision on the merits of the dispute concerning the Small Parcel Sorting System or SPSS. Not unexpectedly, the arbitrator rejected the claims filed by both the NPMHU and the APWU, and upheld the Postal Service’s August 7, 2015 revised jurisdictional determination for jobs on the SPSS. The bottom line is that the Mail Handlers remain the primary craft for dumping and loading mail onto the SPSS and for sweeping the SPSS, while the Clerks remain the primary craft for the singulating and facing work on the SPSS and for that portion of the sweeping needed for ergonomic rotation. The arbitrator reached this conclusion for various reasons, including by analogizing to the APPS and APBS machines:

[T]he Arbitrator finds, in these circumstances, that the USPS, in reaching its determination to award the “singulating”/“facing” work on the SPSS to the Clerk Craft, was acting in a manner which was consistent with its determination of the award of jobs on these two machines, with the assignment of such duties to the Mail Handlers on the APPS in light of the limited amount of such work to be performed and to the Clerks on the APBS in light of the more significant amount of such work required. To that extent, the Arbitrator finds that the USPS, in awarding the “singulating”/“facing” work on the SPSS to the Clerks as the Primary Craft, based in part on the assignment of such work to the Clerks on the APBS, was not acting in a manner which was arbitrary or an abuse of its discretion.

Should you have any questions about this decision, please contact the National CAD.

Please disseminate this memorandum and the attached decision as you deem appropriate. Cc: Mike Hora, National Secretary-Treasurer National Executive Board National/Regional CAD

NATIONAL JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE ARBITRATION RI-399

JOSEPH M. SHARNOFF, ARBITRATOR

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

AND

NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION Case Nos. Q11M-6Q-J 15281315 & Q10C-4Q-J 15291805;(Small Parcel AND Sorting System -Merits)

AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION

Appearances: For U. S. P. S.: Brian M. Reimer, Esquire Leigh S. Hsu, Labor Relations Specialist

For N.P.M.H.U.: Bruce R. Lerner, Esquire Philip C. Andonian, Esquire Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C. For A.P.W.U.: Darryl J. Anderson, Esquire O’Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson, P. C.

OPINION AND AWARD OF THE

ARBITRATOR

The instant National-level grievance was filed on September 15, 2015, by Thomas J. Branch, Manager, Contract Administration, National Postal Mail Handlers Union [NPMHU herein], with Doug Tulino, Vice President, Labor

2

Relations United States Postal Service [USPS herein], pursuant to Article 15, Section 15.3(D), of the National Agreement between the NPMHU and the USPS. The NPMHU, as set forth in this grievance, states its protest, in relevant part, of:

. . . the Postal Service’s ongoing and continuing violations of Articles 5 and 7.2 of the National Agreement, stemming from its assignment of clerk craft employees to operate the Small Parcel Sorting System (SPSS).

As you know, by letter dated June 1, 2015, the Postal Service acted pursuant to the tripartite process under the RI-399 Dispute Resolution Procedures (DRP) and issued its jurisdictional craft determination for operating the SPSS. That June 1, 2015 craft determination found that the “primary craft for all duties associated with the operation of the SPSS is the Mail Handler Craft.” Further, that June 1, 2015 determination was effective and final and binding when issued, unless either the NPMHU or the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) or both timely challenged that determination by filing a dispute under the RI-399 DRP or otherwise appealing the issue to National arbitration. Neither the NPMHU nor the APWU filed such a timely dispute; nor did either the NPMHU or the APWU timely appeal the issue to National arbitration. Accordingly, the Postal Service’s craft determination of June 1, 2015 became (and remains) final and contractually binding on all parties, including the Postal Service.

On August 7, 2015, the Postal Service unilaterally tried to reverse its June 1, 2015 craft determination by issuing a revised determination, declaring that certain duties associated with the operation of the SPSS would be assigned to the clerk craft represented by the APWU instead of the mail handler craft represented by the NPMHU. In particular, the Postal Service advised the NPMHU that clerks would be assigned to “singulating/separating packages & facing/feeding packages into [the] induction belt” on the SPSS, as well as to the sweeping function on the SPSS when necessary for rotation of these craft employees.

It is the NPMHU’s position that the revised craft determination unilaterally issued on August 7, 2015 was and is null and void and of no effect, and that the Postal Service’s June 1, 2015 determination

3

remains binding on the Postal Service and the two unions. Indeed, beginning on June 1, 2015 and continuing through at least August 7, 2015, the Postal Service implemented its June 1, 2015 craft determination for the SPSS by posting and awarding bids to employees in the mail handler craft for positions and assignments on the SPSS in those facilities where the SPSS had been deployed. Also, in some facilities, many temporary, non-career employees from the NPMHU bargaining unit - that is, Mail Handler Assistants or MHAs – have been converted to full-time regular and permanent career positions as mail handlers as a result of the June 1, 2015 craft determination.

In these circumstances, the NPMHU submits that only mail handlers may be assigned to operate the SPSS, and any use of clerk or other craft employees on the SPSS must comply with the provisions of Article 7.2 of the National Agreement, specifically subsections C and D of Article 7.2 that govern cross-craft assignments and prohibit such assignments except in narrow circumstances not presented by the current situation.

The NPMHU therefore files this National-level grievance to challenge the Postal Service’s ongoing and continuing assignment of clerk craft employees to operate the SPSS, contrary to the final and binding determination of June 1, 2015. The Postal Service’s failure to comply with the June 1, 2015 determination is a violation of Articles 5 and 7.2 of the National Agreement. The NPMHU requests a prompt meeting (and, if necessary, arbitration) on this subject, and seeks a financial remedy (at appropriate overtime rates for mail handlers identified by the NPMHU) for all hours improperly worked by clerk employees instead of mail handlers.

This matter should be scheduled for a pre-arbitration meeting as promptly as possible.

* * *

BifurcationofDispute

The Parties, the NPMHU, the APWU and the USPS, reached anagreement,relatedtoaproceedingintheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbia,toholdtheinstantproceeding,onJune15and16,2016. Thethree

4

Parties agreed that the issue to be resolved by the Arbitrator in the initialproceedingwaslimitedtotheproprietyandeffectofthechangesmadebytheUSPS,onAugust17,2015,totheCraftDeterminationfortheSPSS,whichtheUSPS initially had issued to the NPMHU and to the APWU on June 1, 2015.The instant proceeding involves the Parties’ agreement to present forresolution themerits of the dispute(s) concerning the awards by the USPS,initiallyinJune2015andthenasrevisedonre-evaluationinAugust2015,ofthepositionson thenewSPSSmachine tomembersof thebargainingunits,representedbytheNPMHUandtheAPWUrespectively.

TheArbitrator issuedanOpinionandAward,datedDecember2,2016,which resolved the preliminary issues presented in the course of thisbifurcatedprocess.Thereafter,hearingswereheldonMarch19and20,2019,andonMarch10,2020,onthemeritsofthedeterminationbytheUSPSofthejobs on the SPSS,which the USPS issued initially on June 1, 2015, and as areviseddeterminationonAugust7,2015. TheArbitratorreceivedtranscriptsofthesehearings. Post-ArbitrationbriefsweresubmittedtotheArbitratorbyeachofthePartiesonJuly10,2020.

ISSUES

TheArbitrator Uinds the issuetoberesolved in thisproceeding is: WhethertheSPSSCraftDetermination,whichwasissuedinitiallybytheUSPSonJune1, 2015, or the revised SPSS Craft Determination, which was issued by theUSPS on August 7, 2015, and which changed the initial award of jobs, wasproper under the RI-399 principles, the Parties’ respective CollectiveBargainingAgreementsand relevantArbitral authority, and shouldbe foundtobecontrolling.Ifsuchaviolationisfoundtohavebeendemonstrated,whatshouldbetheremedy?

RELEVANTPROVISIONSOFMEMORANDUMOFUNDERSTANDINGBETWEENTHEUSPS,THEAPWU,AFL-CIOANDTHENPMHU,ADIVISIONOFLABORERS’INTERNATIONALUNIONOFNORTHAMERICA,AFL-CIOEffectiveApril29,1992

5

REGIONAL INSTRUCTION 399 - DISPUTE RESOLUTIONPROCEDURES

GeneralPrinciples

The parties to this Agreement agree to a new procedure forresolving jurisdictional disputes under Regional Instruction 399(hereafter “RI-399”). The new procedureswill be implementedsixty(60)calendardaysaftertheeffectivedateofthisAgreement.

EffectivewiththesigningofthisAgreement,nonewdisputeswillbe initiated at the local level by either union challengingjurisdictional work assignments in any operations as theycurrently exist. Except asotherwise speciUicallyprovided in theNeworConsolidatedFacilities,NewWork,orOperationalChangesections contained in this memorandum, all local craftjurisdictionalassignmentswhicharenotalready thesubjectofapending locally initialed grievance will be deemed as a properassignmentforthatfacility.

In order to provide for expeditious and efUicient resolution ofjurisdictional disputes only one representative case shall beprocessed for each operation/function in dispute. Multipledisputesarisingoutofthesameorsubstantiallysimilarissuesorfactsshallnotbeallowed.

Dispute Resolution Committees shall be established at the local,regionalandnationallevels.TheCommitteeshallbecomposedofone (1) representative from each of the three parties. TherepresentativeontheCommitteemaybeassistedbyatechnicianatanyorallmeetings ifadvancenotice isgivento theother twoparties. At larger installations the local parties may mutuallyagreetoestablishmorethanone(1)Committee; however,thereshallnotbemorethanone(1)Committeeperfacility. Committeedecisionsshallbebymutualagreementofall3parties.

Meetings of the Committee must be scheduled with sufUicientfrequency so that a decision can be rendered within the timelimitscontainedinthisAgreement. Thetimelimitscontainedinthis Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the

6

parties. If a committee fails to render a decisionwith the timeframes in this Agreement the moving union may appeal thedisputetothenextstepintheprocedure.

Eachpartyatthelocallevelwillberesponsibleformaintaininganinventory of jurisdictional assignments not in dispute. Asjurisdictional disputes are resolved under this procedure, theresultsshallbeaddedtotheinventory.

The national parties shall mutually determine and implement anewnumberingsystemtobeutilizedinthisprocedure.

All parties to this Agreement may participate in the arbitrationproceedings at either level and all parties shall beboundby thearbitrator’s award whether or not they participate in thearbitrationproceedings. Thearbitrator’sawardshallbeUinalandbinding.

Any settlement entered into at any level must be a tripartitesettlement.

***

NationalLevel

The National Dispute Resolution Committee (NDRC) shall havesixty (60) calendar days after receipt of a properly Uiled orappealeddisputetoattempttoresolvethedispute.

1. Either union may initiate a dispute at the National levelwhen such dispute involves an interpretive issue whichunder the National Agreement is of general application.SuchdisputesshallbeprovidedtotheNationalCommittee,inwriting,andmustspecifyindetailthefactsgivingrisetothe dispute, the precise interpretive issues to be decidedandthecontentionsoftheUnion.

2. If a dispute is resolved, a tripartite settlement agreementwillbesignedbytheparties.

3. If the dispute is unresolved at the end of the sixty (60)calendardayperiod,atripartitedecisionwillbewrittenbytheCommitteesettingforththepositionofeachparty. Themoving Union may appeal the dispute to National

7

Arbitration within twenty-one (21) calendar days of thedate of receipt of the written decision of the Committee.Copiesoftheappealwillbeprovidedtotheotherparties.

4. In the event theNational Committee, after review, decidesthat a dispute appealed from the regional level does notinvolve an interpretative issue which is of generalapplication, the dispute shall be remanded to the regionallevelandplacedonthelistofpendingarbitrationcases.

***

NationalArbitration

One arbitrator will be jointly selected by the parties at thenational level on thebasis ofmutual agreement. Once selected,the arbitrator will hear only jurisdictional disputes. Thearbitrator’s fees and expenses will be allocated on the basis ofone-half(1/2)tomanagementandone-half(1/2)sharedequallyby the participating unions. However, if a party decides not toparticipate in the arbitration proceedings, the remaining partieswillequallydividethearbitrator’sfeesandexpenses. Schedulingof cases will be jointly performed by the parties from a list ofdates submittedby thenational arbitrator. Time frameswill bethesameasthosedesignatedforregionalarbitration.ThemethodofschedulingwillnormallybeonaUirst-in/Uirst-outbasis.

Pursuant to Article 15 of theNational Agreement, only disputesinvolvinginterpretiveissuesundertheNationalAgreementwhichareofgeneralapplicationwillbearbitratedatthenationallevel.

Additionally, the national-level arbitrator may be invited toparticipate in an advisory capacity at National Committeemeetingsonitemsrelatedtoproblemsofconsistencyofregional-level awards or other problems mutually determined by thecommittee. The arbitrator may be empowered by mutualagreementofthepartiestoissueinstructionstotheregional-levelarbitratorswhichwereconsistentwithanymutualunderstandingon these issues reached as a result of committee discussions.Paymentforsuchserviceswillbemadeasforanactualarbitrationhearing.

8

NeworConsolidatedWork

The following procedures shall apply to the opening of new orconsolidatedfacilities.

Forty-Uive (45) calendar days prior to the opening of a new orconsolidatedfacility,themembersoftheRDRCwillbenotiUiedofthedateonwhichactivationwill takeplace. Withinninety (90)calendar days of that activation, the LDRC designated for thefacilitywillconductan inventoryof jurisdictionalassignmentsatthe facility andwill attempt to resolve any disputeswhich arisefromthesediscussions. Ifnecessary,representativesoftheRDRCwillassistthelocalpartieswithon-sitereviews.

Jurisdictionalassignmentsshallnotbechangedsolelyonthebasisof moving operation(s) into a new facility. If jurisdictionalassignments existed in a previous facility, they shall be carriedforwardintothenewfacilityexceptwhereoperationalchangesasdescribed below result in the reassignment from one craft toanother.

Inaneworconsolidated facility, the jurisdictionalassignment inthe previous facilities must be considered by the LDRC in thedetermination mentioned above, in the event the consolidatedoperation(s)hadamixedpracticeinthepreviousinstallations.

ThedecisionoftheLDRCwillbeprocessedinaccordancewiththedecision and appeals procedures previously outlined, includingappealstothehigherlevelsoftheprocess.

NewWork

This section refers to implementation of RI-399 involving workwhichhadnotpreviouslyexistedintheinstallation.

The procedures for activation of a new or consolidated facilityshallapplytotheassignmentofnewworktoaninstallation. ThestandardscontainedinSectionII.EofRI-399shallapplyinmakingthecraftdeterminations.

***

9

BACKGROUND

The Arbitrator notes, preliminarily, that some of the followingsummaryincludesportionsofthetestimonyofindividualswhotestiUiedduring the course of the Uirst set of hearings concerning the issue ofwhether the revision by the USPS in August 2015 of the initialdeterminationofjobsontheSPSSinJune2015wasimproper,suchthatthereviseddetermination,infactorineffect,wasnullandvoidwiththeresult that the determination of June 2015 was controlling. Thefollowingalso includessummariesof the testimonyof individualswhoparticipated in thehearingsonMarch19and20,2019, andonMarch10, 2020, concerning the merits of the dispute over the initialdeterminationinJune2015bytheUSPSofthejobsontheSPSS,andoftheAugust2015reviseddeterminationbytheUSPSandthesubsequentawardofthejobspursuanttothatrevision.

TestimonyofPatrickM.Devine,USPSManager,ContractAdministrationNMPHU

PatrickM.DevinetestiUied,duringtheinitialhearings,that,atthetime,hewastheUSPSManager,ContractAdministration–NPMHU,andManagerofEmployeeWorkplacePrograms. At thetimeof themattersat issue in2015,Mr.DevineservedastheManager,ContractAdministration–APWU.

TestimonyofMr.DevineRe:BackgroundofSPSSCraftDetermination

Mr.DevinetestiUied,duringtheinitialhearings,that,priortoissuingtheSPSSCraftDetermination,byletterdatedJune1,2015,theParties,including,Ricky Dean, as the representative of the USPS, and representatives of theNPMHUandtheAPWU,scheduledasitevisit inMarch2015,toseetheSPSSmachine in operation but, because of inclement weather, the site visit waspostponed until April 2015. The Unions thereafter submitted writtenstatementsofpositiononthestafUingoftheSPSS.

CraftDeterminationLetter

10

BytheUSPSoftheSmallParcelSorterSystem(SPSS)DatedJune1,2015

TheUSPS,byletter,datedJune1,2015,fromPatrickM.Devine,Manager,ContractAdministration,toPaulV.Hogrogian,President,NPMHU,setforththeUSPS’ jurisdictional craft determination for operation of the Small ParcelSortingSystem(SPSS).Thisletterstates,inrelevantpart:

. . . On April 23 members of the RI-399 National DisputeResolutionCommittee(NDRC)visitedtheWestValleyProcessing&DistributionCenter (P&DC) toobserve theSPSS inoperation.BytheenclosedletterdatedApril28,thePostalServiceaskedtheAmericanPostalWorkersUnion(APWU)andtheNationalPostalMailHandlersUnion(NPMHU) toprovide inputregardingwhichcraft should be the primary craft for operation of the machine.ThePostalServicereceivedinputfrombothunionsbyletterdatedMay7.

TheSPSSisdesignedtoprovideadditionalprocessingsupportforthegrowingpackageneedsof smallparcelsweighing20poundsor less. As indicated in previous correspondence and theFebruary 10 brieUing provided to the unions, the Postal Serviceplans todeploy26SPSSmachines, inaddition to the5pilot testlocations.

The standard conUiguration for the SPSS includes Uive (5)inductionstationsononeplatformwith196dischargechutes towiretrainers, pallet boxes or spinner sack racks. Parcels aredumpedontoinclinebeltsleadingtoeachinductionstation. Theoperator then singulates, faces and slides packages to theinductionbelt. Therewillbenokeyingoperationassociatedwiththe SPSS. The system collects weight & dimensions of everypackage, and includes a Postal Furnished Equipment (PFE) Top-read camera, with OCR enhancement, to identify barcodes.Packagesaredischarged to theappropriatewiretrainers, sackorpalletbox,andsweepersremovethecontainersfortransfertotheappropriatedispatcharea.

11

Recent enhancements to the pilot machine, as indicated in theenclosedApril28followupcorrespondence,include:

4. Largercarriercellsize–allowinglargerpackagestobeprocessed; 5.OCRcapability–providingimprovedaddressandbarcodereadability;and 6. VCS capability – providing remote coding capabilitythroughtheRECsite.

ThedutiesperformedinoperationoftheSPSSinclude:

• Retrievalofpackagesfromastagingarea• Operatingacontainerdumperanddumpingpackagesontoinclinebelt

• Singulating/Feedingpackagestoinductionbelt• Sweepingpackages(removingfullcontainersandreplacingwithemptycontainers

• Transportingfullcontainerstoastagingarea

ThedutiesperformedontheSPSSaresimilartothoseperformedon the Automated Package Processing System (APPS) and theAutomated Parcel Bundle Sorter (APBS), with one distinctdifference.OntheAPBS,theemployeessingulatingandfacingthemail also perform keying duties. Where keying is involved, theworkisnormallyassignedtotheClerkCraft. However,theSPSS,withOCRandVCS capability, eliminates theneed for anykeyingwhatsoever. Therefore, the duties performed on the SPSS aremostsimilartothoseperformedontheAPPS,wherenokeyingisinvolved.

After reviewing the equipment operation, carefully consideringthe input fromtheAmericanPostalWorkersUnion,AFL-CIOandthe National Postal Mail Handlers Union, and applying theprinciples of RI-399, the Postal Service has determined that allduties performed on the SPSS are most similar to the dutiesperformedbyaMailHandler.Accordingly,theprimarycraftforallduties associated with the operation of the SPSS is the MailHandlerCraft.

12

The actual number of employees required to perform thedutiesassociatedwiththeSPSSatanytimewillbedeterminedbasedonlocalconUigurationandoperationalneeds. Inthetestsiteswherethe SPSS is already in operation and clerk craft employees havebeenutilized formachine testing, assignment of the appropriatecraft in accordance with this determination will be made asexpeditiouslyaspossible,butnolaterthan90daysfromthedateofthisletter.

Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcerns,pleasecontactRickyDeanatextension....

***

TestimonyofMr.DevineReEventsAftertheIssuanceoftheSPSSCraftDeterminationJune1and2,2015

Mr.DevinetestiUiedthatheissuedtheSPSSCraftDeterminationletterbyfaxtoeachoftheUnionsontheafternoonofMonday,June1,2015,between4:00p.m.and5:00p.m. AccordingtoMr.Devine,duringtheweeksprecedingthe issuance of the SPSS Craft Determination, he had been engaged innegotiationswith theAPWU,which endedon aboutMay20, 2015. For thenext two weeks, Mr. Devine and his staff were completing the drafting ofdocumentsrelatedtothosenegotiations. According to Mr. Devine, Mike Mlkar, the Manager of Field LaborRelations in the Chicago area, spoke to him about the SPSS CraftDeterminationwhichjusthadbeenissued:

AndMikecameinandstartedtalkingaboutthisletter. Andhe--itwasclearthathedidn’tagreewithit.AndsoIstartedtoexplain to him the rationale behind the letter. And I said,well,holdon, let’shaveRicky involved,becauseRickyhaddrafted theletter formysignature. And then the threeofusdiscussed itatlength.

***

13

LetterFromNPMHUNationalPresidentHogrogian,toAllNPMHULocalPresidents,datedJune2,2015

NPMHUNationalPresidentHogrogianandThomas J.Branch,ManagerNational CAD, sent the following letter, dated June 2, 2015, concerning theUSPS’sCraftDeterminationfortheSPSS,datedJune1,2015.Thisletterstates,inrelevantpart:

WearepleasedtoencloseacopyofaJune1,2015letterthatsets forth the Postal Service’s determination of craft jurisdictionforemployeesoperatingtheSmallParcelSorterSystem,whichiscurrentlydeployedinUivepilottestlocations,andwillbedeployedshortly in twenty-six other facilities around the country. As setforthintheattachedletter,thePostalServicehasdeterminedthat“theprimary craft foralldutiesassociatedwith theoperationoftheSPSSistheMailHandlerCraft.”

*** More details about this assignment and the SPSS areincluded in the attached letter, and will be discussed in futurecorrespondence. We also plan to circulate, as promptly aspossible, additional information aboutdeployment locations, thetimingofdeployment,andtheactualpositionstobeUilled.

Should you have any questions about this letter or itsimplementation in any particular facility, please contact theNationalCAD. Pleasenote that, as stated in theUSPS letter, anySPSS machine that currently is utilizing clerk craft employeesshould be reassigned “as expeditiously as possible, but no laterthan 90 days from” June 1, 2015. If you are encounteringresistance or opposition frommanagement when implementingthisletter,pleasecontacttheNationalCADsothatwecanaddressparticularimplementationproblemswithpostalheadquarters.

***

TestimonyofMr.DevineReEventsAftertheIssuanceof

14

theSPSSCraftDeterminationJune3,2015

Mr.DevinetestiUiedthat,onthemorningofJune3,2015,hemetwithMr.Tulino, Mr. Dean, Alan Moore, USPS Manager, Contract Administration –National Association of Letter Carriers [NALC herein], and AllenMohl, whopreviously had been in Mr. Devine’s position as Manager, ContractAdministration – NPMHU. According to Mr. Devine, the discussion at themeetingwas,asfollows:

SoDoug[Tulino]comesinandsayswe’reheretotalkaboutyourletteronthisRI-399matter.AndIsaid,okay.Hegoes,therehavebeensomequestionsraisedaboutthisletter,andIneedyou--meaningmyself[i.e.,Mr.Devine]- - toexplaintomewhatthisletterisabout,whyit’swrittenthisway,allthatsortofthing.

And Inoted thathewas containing - -hewasupsetwithme. AndsoIexplainedtohim --andwhatIexplainedtohimisjustbasicallyfollowingthetextoftheletteritself.

After I Uinishedexplainingtohim - -as Isaid,AlanMooreandAllenMohlwere intheroomtalking. Andtheystart talkingaboutcasesfromthe1980’s,basedupontheirexperience--AlanMoore had handled RI-399 cases out in the central region forabouttenyears. AndAlanMohlwastalkingabouthisexperiencewithRI-399.

Andatthatpoint,Istartedgoingthroughasummaryofthemorerecentarbitrationawards,includingthetwofromArbitratorSharnoff. And then picking up beginning in 2004 with APPSforward.

***

According toMr.Devine, althoughMr. Tulinohad referred to the SPSSCraft Determination which had issued on June 1, 2015, as “a mistake,” Mr.TulinodidnotdirectMr.Devinetomakeaparticulardecision.

15

TestimonyofMr.DevineReMemo-PriorCraftDeterminationsDatedJune3,2015

Mr.DevinetestiUiedaboutane-mailmemorandum,datedJune3,2015,Subject “Fwd: RI-399Analysis to SPSS”,whichhehad sent toMr.Dean,Mr.Moore,andMr.Mohl, following theirdiscussionwithMr.Tulino. Thememostates,inrelevantpart:

AUTOMATEDPARCELBUNDLESORTER(APBS)July 29, 2011 letter fromDevine (attached) awardingwork to aretroUitted SPBS primarily to mail handlers, giving facing andkeyingworktoclerks.

***This may provide the basis for revising the SPSS determinationletter,giving(only)thefacingworktoclerks.

However, itmaynotbeveryefUicienttohaveaclerkinacrewofmailhandlerbecauseemployeescouldnotbefullyrotated.

AUTOMATEDPACKAGEPROCESSINGSYSTEM(APPS)June2, 2004 JohnDockins letter toAPWUandNPMHUadvisingthat the primary craft to perform activities associated with theAPPSisthemailhandlercraft.

DISTRIBUTIONZumasawarddatedJuly14,1986onArticle1.5disputereawardto clerks the mail processor position. He gave work on OCRs,recognizerightofclerkstoperformdistribution.However,Zumaswasguidedbythefactthat088-089OCRMachinedistributionofallclassesofmailisspeciUicallyassignedtoclerksundertheJune15, 1979RI-399 Primary CraftDesignations. For the SPSS: nospeciUicreferenceinRI-399.

DUTIESNOWPERFORMEDBYAMACHINESnowawarddatedSeptember17,2001inanotherArticle1.5case,upheldassignmentofCarrierSequenceBarCodeSorting(CSBCS)toclerks. NALCarguedthatcasingofmail is lettercarrierwork.Snow found that clerks operate machines while letter carriers

16

don’t. Healsonotedthattheclerkswerenotperformingmanualcasing, which would have been a violation For SPSS: mailhandlersoperatesimilarmachines(APPS). Also,thedistributionbymachine,notmanual.

SMALLPARCELBUNDLESORTER(SPBS)Sharnoff awarddatedSeptember7,2009upheldtheassignmentof dedicated sweeping to themail handlers on the Small ParcelandBundleSorter(SPBS).APWUargueditshouldhavetheentiremachine,andthatsweepingwaspartofthe“alliedduties”thatare“integralpartofthedistributionfunction”onthemachinewheretheclerkswerekeying. SharnoffreliedonthefactthatthesameassignmentsweremadeontheMechanizedParcelSorter(whereclerks perform distribution by keying for nomore than 2 hoursand mail handlers do dumping and sweeping). SharnoffspeciUicallyrejectedtheAPWU’slettersortingmachine(LSM)andoptical character reader (OCR) “allied duties” argument, Uindingtherewasnoneedfortheadditionalsweepingtobeincorporatedintotherotationsystem.

***

Mr. Devine testiUied that, later on June 3, 2015, he discussed theseawardswithMr.Dean,Mr.MooreandMr.Mohl:

. . . What I was talking about was here were more recentassignments.SowetalkedabouttheAPBS,whichIdon’tthinkit’sbeenexplainedtothearbitrator. ButtheAPBSisanautomatedversion of the small parcel and bundle sorter . . . . So thebackgroundhereisIsentthistotheseguystalkingaboutUirsttheassignmentsthethen[sic] Uinallyacoupleof thecasesthatweredecidedsincethe1980s.

***

According toMr. Devine,Mr. Tulino, in his discussionwithMr. DevineandtheothersonJune3,2015,didnotmakeanyreferencetotheAPWUinthecontextofthedecisiontoawardthework.Mr.DevinetestiUiedthatneitherhe,norMr.Tulino,hadanycontactwiththeAPWUbetweenJune1,andAugust7,2015.

17

Oncross-examinationbytheNPMHU,Mr.DevinestatedthatMr.MoorehadhadexperiencewiththeRI-399processbutheneverservedontheNDRC.Mr.Moore had had experiencewith RI-399 cases as a representative of theAPWU but, after he was employed by the USPS in Labor Relations, he alsoparticipated,asanadvocatefortheUSPS,in“asigniUicantregionalawardfromArbitratorMcCallistersomewhereinMinnesota.”Mr.Devinewasnotawareofany relationship between Mr. Moore and APWU representatives with theNDRC, such as Ron Suslak or TomMeier. NorwasMr. Devine aware ifMr.Moore had had any conversations about the SPSS Craft DeterminationwithanyoneintheAPWUduringtheJunetoAugust2015period.Mr.Devinenotedthat, at the time, Mr. Mohl was the Manager, Contract Administration –NPMHU.Mr.DevineunderstoodthatMr.MohlhadattendedsomeoftheNDCRmeetings.Mr.DevinestatedthatMr.MohlhadbeenanAPWULocalPresidentin Fort Lauderdale, Florida, inwhich position he had handled RI-399 “localarbitrations.”Mr.DevinewasnotawarewhetherMr.Mohlhadhadanycontactwith any APWU ofUicial during the period June to August 2015. [TheArbitrator notes that Mr. Reimer, attorney for the USPS, represented that,pursuant to theNPMHU’srequest for information in thisproceeding,hehadcheckedwithMr.MooreandwithMr.Mohlandneitherhadhadanywrittencommunications,includingtextmessagesande-mails,duringthisperiodwiththeAPWUconcerningtheSPSSCraftDetermination.] Mr.DevinestatedthathehadnoknowledgeastowhyMr.TulinohadaskedMr.Mooretoparticipatein the SPSS Craft Determination reconsideration. Mr. Devine stated thatneitherhenorMr.DeanhaddiscussedtheSPSSCraftDeterminationwithMr.MoorepriortothemeetingonJune3,2015.

Mr.DevinetestiUied,oncross-examinationbytheNPMHU,thatMr.MlkarwastheUirstpersonintheUSPSmanagementtoquestiontheinitialSPSSCraftDetermination. Mr.DevinedidnotknowwhyMr.Tulinodidnot includeMr.Mlkar in the June 3, 2015, meeting. Mr. Devine did not have any furtherdiscussionswithMr.MlkarabouttheSPSSCraftDeterminationafterMr.Mlkarraisedquestionsabouttheresultandwasnotawarewhetheranyoftheotherthree,Mr.Dean,Mr.MooreandMr.Mohl,hadanysuchcontact.

Mr.Devine testiUied, on cross-examinationby theNPMHU, that, duringthe meeting with on June 3, 2015, Mr. Tulino did not mention that APWUPresident Diamondstein was upset with the craft determination issued onJune1,2015,nordidhementiontheAPWUexceptinthefollowingcontext:

18

Theonlycommentthatwasmadeabouttheunion--anditwasbothunions --wasthatifwehadmadeamistake --again,theword“mistake”--thenthatwouldimpactourcredibilitywithbothunions,aswellasthebargainingunitsthemselves.

***

Mr. Devine added that, Mr. Tulino “was clear to me in making thatstatementthatthiswas - - itwasaveryseriousmatterif, indeed,amistakehadbeenmade.”

Mr. Devine testiUied, on cross-examination by the NPMHU, that, withregard toMr.Mohl,whowas theManagerof theLaborRelationsstaffof theUSPSfortheNPMHU,therewasnodiscussionatthetimeaboutnotifyingtheNPMHUaboutthepotentialmistakeorthereconsideration. AccordingtoMr.Devine, “No. Our focus was very - - I don’t want to say singular, whichsuggestssomethingisoff. Butwehadasingletask,andthatwasUiguringoutthecorrectassignment,whethertheUirstletterwaswrongandthenifsohowtocorrectit.”Mr.DevinetestiUiedthathehadnoknowledgeduringtheperiodfrom June 1, to August 7, 2015, with regard to how the review was beingcharacterizedbytheNPMHU.

TestimonyofMr.DevineRe:ConsiderationofChangesTotheJune1,2015SPSSCraftDeterminationBetweenJune3,AndAugust7,2015

Mr. Devine testiUied that, between June 3, 2015, and August 7, 2015,whentherevisedSPSSCraftDeterminationissued,heandMr.Dean,Mr.MooreandMr.Mohl,tookthefollowingactions:

Well,basicallywelookedateverysingleRI-399arbitrationaward. Wealsolookedatsomeofthe--Article1-5,whichisthecontractualprovisionfornewpositions.

We looked at - - and several of them were looked atyesterday. Andthenwelookedattheassignmentsthathadtaken

19

place since, again, since the APPSmachine in 2004,whichwereassignments. They’d not been assigned or overturned by anarbitrator,buttheywereassignments.

Andwearguedandbickeredbackandforth. Butthethingthatwas notedwas as going to themerits. Butwenoted someshifts in thepattersof theassignments,which is consistentwithwhatwesawintheaward.

And then what happened is Allen Mohl asked us if weneeded to take a second look at the APPSmachine. So he andRicky went and visited the APPS. There’s an APPSmachine inseveral different places around here, including Dulles, Virginia.Theywentoutandcameback.

Andatthatpoint,theconsensusamongthefourofusisthisnewSPSSwasmore like theAPBSthat itwas theAPPS. So thatmeantwewere going to recommend toMr. Tulido [sic] thatwechange the letter. Despitemyearlier resistance, Iwasonboardwiththat.

AndwedecidedandtoldDoug[Tolino],senthimeventuallytheletterwhich,ifmemoryserves,isprobablythedocumentthatwascreatedbyRickeyDean,whichwasinthate-mailyoushowedmewiththebccsheetearlier.

***

Mr.DevinetestiUiedthattheydecidedtoindicateintheheadingofthedocumentthattheysenttoMr.Tulinothatallfour,Mr.Devine,Mr.Dean,Mr.MooreandMr.Mohl,wereinagreementaboutthemodiUicationoftheJune1,2015, SPSSCraftDetermination. Mr.Devine,Mr.Moore andMr.Dean eachtestiUiedthathehadnotspokentoanyrepresentativesoftheAPWUabouttheSPSSCraftDeterminationbetweenJune1,andAugust7,2015.

Letter,FromMr.Devine,Manager,ContractAdministration(APWU)toAPWUPresidentDimondstein,datedAugust7,2015

20

Mr. Devine, USPS Manager, Contract Administration (APWU), sent thefollowing letter, dated August 7, 2015, to Mark Dimondstein, NationalPresident, APWU. An identical letter also was sent by Mr. Devine to Mr.Hogrogian,NationalNPMHUPresident. Mr.Devine’slettertoeachrespectiveUnionPresidentstates,inrelevantpart:

ThisreplacesandsupersedesourJune1letterregardingthecraftdetermination for operation of the Small Parcel Sorting System(SPSS). Afterfurtherreviewandconsiderationoftheequipmentoperation, arbitral history and prior jurisdictional craftdeterminations,andagaincarefullyconsideringtheinputfromtheAmericanPostalWorkersUnion,AFL-CIOandtheNationalPostalMail Handlers Union, and applying the principles of RI-399, thePostal Service has determined that amodiUication to the June 1SPSScraftdeterminationisnecessary.

We have determined that the hands-on induction, including thesingulating/separating and facing of individual packages, on theUive induction stations of the SPSS is similar to the inductionstations on both the Small Parcel Bundle Sorter (SPBS) and theAutomatedPackageProcessingSystem(APBS),whicharestaffedwithmailprocessingclerkcraftemployees.

The primary craft designation for the performance of duties foroperationoftheSPSSisasfollows:

1.RetrievalofpackagesfromastagingareaMailHandlerCraft2.Operatingacontainerdumperanddumpingpackagesontoinclinebelt MailHandlerCraft3.Singulating/separatingpackages&facing/feedingpackagesontoinductionbelt ClerkCraft4.*Sweepingpackages(removingfullcontainersandreplacingwithemptycontainers MailHandlerCraft5.Transportingfullcontainerstoastagingarea MailHandlerCraft

*Clerkcraftemployeesassigned to the inductionstationswilldoso before rotating to other duties. Clerk craft employees whorotatetoanotherworkassignmentwillperformsweepingdutieson the SPSS. Personnel assigned toperform sweepingduties in

21

addition to the minimum number required to implement thesubject rotation system will be from the primary craft (mailhandler).

The actual number of employees required to perform dutiesassociated with the SPSS at any time will be determined bymanagementbasedonlocalconUigurationandoperationalneeds.In the test sites where the SPSS is already in operation,assignment of the appropriate craft in accordance with thisdeterminationwill bemade as expeditiously as possible, but nolaterthan90daysfromthedateofthisletter.

***

rotation of employees onto the sweeping function of the SPSS.Thesefunctionswereassignedtotheclerkcraft.Therevisedcraftdetermination included in the letter of August 7, 2015 isinconsistentwith the principles of Regional InstructionNo. 399,andisherebyappealedtoNationalArbitrationinaccordancewiththeRI-399DisputeResolutionProcedures.

TheNPMHUposition on the SPSS craft determinationwasinitially set forth in its position statement of May 7, 2015 fromNPMHU General Counsel Bruce Lerner, and has beensupplementedbypriorandsubsequentoralcommunications.

ThismattershouldbescheduledforNationalarbitrationaspromptlyaspossible.

***

TestimonyRegardingtheRevisionOftheDeterminationinAugust2015HearingsontheMerits2019

RickeyDean testiUied, onbehalf theUSPS, that, at the timeoftheconsiderationbytheUSPSoftheassignmentsofCraftjobsontheSPSS in 2015, he was a Labor Relations Specialist in the ContractAdministrationGroupdealingwiththeAPWU.AtthetimeoftheUirstset of hearings in this case, Mr. Dean was detailed as the Acting

22

Manager, Contract Administration Headquarters, Labor Relations,dealingwiththeAPWUcontract.AtthetimeofthehearingsinMarchandMay,2019,Mr.DeanwastheManager,ContractAdministration,ContractAdministrationfortheAPWUcontract.Mr.DeanpreviouslyhadtestiUied in theearlierproceedingthat,hehadparticipated inasitevisit totheUSPSfacilityinPhoenix,Arizona. Mr.DeantestiUied,asfollowsregardingthatvisit.“Well,weconductedasitevisitunder- - as theNDRC aswe normally dowhenwe’re looking at possiblecraftdetermination. . . . WeinvitedrepresentativesfromboththeAPWUandtheNationalmailhandlersuniontoaccompanyusonthatsite visit. Itwas theWest Valley facility in Phoenix. John Prokityhappenedtobethereatthetime,soheaccompaniedusaswellwhenwedidatourofthemachine,watchedthemachineinoperation....Andthennormallywhathappensisafterwedothissitevisit,wewillsolicitinputfrombothoftheunionsastowhatcraftdeterminationstheythinkshouldbemade.”

AccordingtoMr.Dean,“ThatfacilityhadanSPSSthatwasupandfullyoperational,runninglivemail,and--andwethoughtwewouldgetthe bes t l ook a t the mach ine there .” Mr. Dean tes tiUied:“Well,asIsaid,welookedatthemachine,andthenwhenwecameback,wesolicitedinputfromthetwounionsonwhattheythoughtthecraftdeterminationsshouldbe,andthenwe -- wetookalookattheirinput. Wecarefully considered theRI-399principles, andwecame tothe conclusion, which is contained in our June 1st decision letter.”According toMr.Dean, “At that timewe had decided that the primarycraft for the operation of the SPSS would be the mail handlersunion....AndthatwasprimarilybasedonourvisittotheWestValleyfacility.Andprobablythethingthatstuckout,atleastinmymindatthetime,whatenteredintooutinitialdiscussion.”

Mr.DeantestiUiedthathedidtheUirstdraftof thedecision letterand had discussions with Patrick Devine, “who was ultimately thed e c i s i o n m a k e r a n d w h o s i g n e d t h e l e tter.Butwecertainlydiscussedtheinputfromtheunions.Wediscussedtheoperationofthemachine. Wediscussed,atthetime,wefeltthatitwas very similar to the APPS and that the mail handlers had thejurisdictionoverthatmachine.”

Mr Dean testiUied that, shortly after they had issued thedetermination on June 1, 2015, “a couple of postal managers, Mike

23

Mlkar,inparticular,whohadapproachedPatrickregardingthatdecisionandindicatingthathethoughtwemayhaveerredinthatdecision.” Mr.Dean testiUied that, about twoor threedays later,USPSVicePresidentforLaborRelationsDougTulinoheldameetingattendedbyMr.Devine,Mr.Dean,AlanMoore,ManagerofLaborRelationsPolicyandContractAdministratorfortheNationalAssociationofLetterCarriers[NALC],MrMklar, and Allen Mohl, Manager of Contract Administration for theNPMHUcontract.

According toMr. Dean, “Mr. Tulino, asked - - I remember heasked Patrick speciUically about the decision letter and how he hadarrivedatthatdecision.Andhesaidhewantedusto.--totakeasecondlook at the decision. He wanted us to go back and particularly pay.attention to previous determinations on some of the other machines,lookatarbitrationhistory,ifnecessary,and--and--anddoasecondlookjusttoconUirmandmakesurethatourdecisionwascorrect.” Mr.DeantestiUiedthatMr.Tulinodidnotindicateonevieworanotheraboutthecorrectnessofthedecision.

Mr.DeantestiUiedthat,atthatpoint,heandMr.Devinelookedatseveraldeterminations“...forthe...mostrecentmachinesinthelastseveralyears.”Mr.DeantestiUied,“Welookedat--wewentbackasfaraslookingattheOCR,butthenwelookedattheSPBSinparticular,welookedattheAPPSmachineinparticular - -andthesearekindofinachronologicorder--andthenwelookedattheAPBSinparticular....Those- -thoseweretheonesthatwelookedatspeciUicallytoseehowthosecraftdeterminationsweremade.”

According toMr. Dean: “Well,we looked atwhatwent into thecraftdeterminationsandof thevariousmachinesandwhat theRI-399principleswereappliedand - - andduringthattime,Ineedtopointout also that we had decided that since, you know, our Uirst decisionletter,wewerebasingatleastpartofthatdecisiononwhatwebelievedthattheSPSSwassimilartotheAPPSmachine.” Mr.DeantestiUiedthatsomeonesuggestedthattheytakea“secondlook”attheAPPSmachine,so he and AllenMohl, the ContractManager for the NPMHU contract,went to see an operating APPS in a facility in Dulles, in NorthernVirginia.

Mr.DeantestiUied:“Well,wetakealookattheAPPS,andIthinkitwas - - thethingthatstoodoutmostinourmindthenwashowthe

24

induction of the packages onto thatmachine are totally performed bythemachineitself. . . . There’snohumanintervention,noemployeeinvolved.Themailhandlersbringthecontainerswiththepackagesoverto themachine - - the container, dumper, or loader, orwhatever it’scalled, it dumps those packages onto an incline belt that brings thepackages up to the induction station, and then it goes on into [sic]machine. . . . Themachineitselfdoesthesimulating[sic,singulating]and - - and - - andsortsthepackages. Adsothat - - thatwasstrikingtous....Thereisa--a--oneemployeeinvolvedinfacing,redirectingpackagesthroughthemachinethatarerejected. Thosethatdon’tread.Butwhatwealsodeterminedwasthatthatemployeeisonlydealing with about 10 to 15 percent of the total packages that gothroughthemachine. Soit’sademinimusamountofwork,andwe- -we determined that it was right that that entire machine was a mailhandlerfunctionbecausethatamountofworkcouldn’tbeofUiciallysep--thatlittlebitoffacingcouldn’tbeofUiciallyseparatedfromtheentirefunction of themachine.” Mr.Dean agreed that theUSPS already hadmadethejobdeterminationfortheAPPS.

Mr.DeantestiUiedthat,afterthattheydecidedtoreviewtheSPBS,whichhadkeyingstationswhichwasaClerkfunction“whichiscriticalto thedistributionfunctionof the , , , machine itself,”andtheAPBS,which“wasaretroUitoftheSPBS,whichaddedtheOCRcapabilitytothemachine”, which reduced the keying from Uive keying stations on theSPBStoonekeyingstationontheAPBS,which“wasutilizedasneeded.”Mr. Dean added, “But what was required then was for the inductionemployeetosingularandfacethepackageontheinductionbeltinsuchawaythatitenabledthemachinetocontinuethedistributionfunction.”

Mr.DeantestiUied:“Soinessencewhatwebelievedthenwasthatthisinductionemployeewasactuallyapartofthedistributionfunctionbecause theywereputting thepackageson themachine in away thatwouldallowthemachineto - - toreadthepackagesanddotheactualsortation.” Mr.DeantestiUied,withregardtothedeterminationofCraftjobson theAPBS: “. . . ThePostalServicehaddetermined that thesingulatingorfacingofthepackagesontothemachineinabsenceofthekeyingwasstillaclerkfunction. . . . Thedumpingwasdeterminedtobeamailhandlerfunctionaswasthesweeping.”

Mr. Dean testiUied that he, Mr. Devine, Mr. Mohl, and Mr. Mlkardiscussedthe SPBSandtheAPBS,andthen“lookedagainattheSPSS,

25

andwe determined thatwhat that employee does on inducting in theSPSS, isessentiallythesameasdoneontheAPBS - - thesingulatingand the facing in order to enable the machine to do the - - thedistribution functionor thesortingof thepackages.” According toMr.Dean: “The fourof us in that so-called committee,wediscussed that.WetalkedaboutAllenMohl. And -- myvisittoDulleslookingattheAPPS.WediscussedhowwelookedattheSPBSandAPBSandwhattheinductingemployeewasactuallydoing. . . . Andwedecidedthenthatthe operation of the SPSS, in particular the induction employee wasmoreproperlyadistributionfunctionthatbelongstotheclerkcraftandthat’s what precipitated the August 7th decision. Of course, we UirstwentbacktoMr.Tulinowithourrecommendation.” Mr.DeantestiUiedthattheir“recommendation”toMr.Tulinowasunanimous.

Mr. Dean testiUied that he made the initial draft of the letter ofAugust7,2015.Mr.DeantestiUiedwithregardtothecraftdeterminationforeachfunction,assetforthinthatletter: retrievalofpackagestotheMailHandlers, “historically under the RI-399 process, that has been amail handler function; operating a container dumper and dumpingpackagesontotheinclinebelttotheMailHandlers,“consistentwithourprevious decisions”; singulating/separating packages and facing/feedingpackagesontoaninductionbelt totheClerks,“thechangethatwasbroughtaboutintheAugust7thdecision.WegavethattotheclerkcraftatthattimebecausewehaddetermineditwasmoreliketheAPBS,andnottheAPPSmatchingandthatthe - - theworkbeingperformedby that induction employee was most similar to the designationfunction.”; sweepingpackages, removing full containersandreplacingwith empty containers to theMailHandlers as thePrimaryCraft, as atraditional function of that Craft, with rotational relief for the Clerksdoingtheinductionwork; transportingfullcontainerstoastagingareatotheMailHandlers.

PatrickDevine,USPSManagerofContractAdministration for theNPMHUcontract,testiUiedonrecallbintheNPMHUforrebuttal,thathehas been involved in RI-399matters for the USPS since 2003 and heagreed that, as of the time he worked on the SPSS determination inDecember2015,hehadextensiveexperiencewithRI-399matters. Mr.Devine testiUied that Mr. Dean served as his subordinate since aboutAugust 2011. Mr. Devine agreed that, as of December 2015, he hadmore experience with RI-399 matters than Mr. Dean. Mr. DevinetestiUied, with regard to the Uirst of the two Craft determinations

26

concerningtheSPSSmachine,inJune2015,hewasawareoftheprocessofdrafting suchdeterminations for theUSPSandhewasawareof theimportance of such determinations to the Craft Unions involved. Heagreed that he tried to be as accurate as possible in drafting thedeterminations and would not issue a determination that he thoughtmightbeincorrect.

Mr. Devine testiUied, with regard to the June 2015 SPSSdetermination,thatboththeNPMHUandtheAPWUsubmittedpositionstatements setting forth their respective views on to which Craft theworkshouldbeawarded. Mr.DevinetestiUiedthatheunderstoodthateachUnion“gaveeverythingtheyhadinthosepaperstotrytoconvince[him] to rule in their favor . . . .” Mr.Devine testiUied thathealsoreviewed relevant jurisdictional dispute Arbitration awards andjurisdictionaldeterminations thathadnot resulted inArbitration. Mr.DevinetestiUiedthattheonlyothersourcehewouldconsiderwere“anyrelevant documents from operations in terms of how the machineoperatesandthefunctionsofeachoneofthepositionsonthemachineitself. . . .” Mr.Devineagreed thathe carefullyhadconsideredalloftheseinreachingthedeterminationissuedonJune1,2015,andhewascertain that thedecision issuedwas the right one. Mr.Devine agreedthat,ifhehadnotbeencertainhewouldnothaveissuedit. Mr.DevineagreedthatthatdeterminationhadawardedallofthepositionsontheSPSStotheMailHandlerCraft.

Mr. Devine testiUied, with regard to the August 7, 2015 SPSSdeterminationletterwhichhehaddrafted,that,afterhehadbeencalledinbyMr.Tulinotoreexaminetheinitialdetermination,hehadrevieweditandhadchangedtheawardonAugust7,2015, insofarasoneof thepositionswhichhadbeenawardedtotheMailHandlerCraftinsteadwasawarded to the Clerk Craft. That position involved the duties ofsingulatingandfacingthepackagesonthebelt. Mr.Devineagreedthatthe function itself had not changed since the issuance of the June 1stdetermination letter. Mr. Devine agreed that he had sent an e-mail,“RI-399Analysis-SPSS,”datedJune3,2015,toMr.Tulino,Mr.Dean,Mr.MooreandMr.Mohl,inwhichMr.Devinehadstated: “IthinktheSPSSshouldstayaswritten.”Mr.Devineagreedthathealsohadstatedinthate-mail that: “The more recent awards from Sharnoff and Snow havediminishedthebrightlineintheZumasaward[ontheOCR].”Mr.DevinetestiUied, inthisregard: “MyconclusionatthattimethatIsentthate-mail, which includedMr. Tulino, was that there had not been enough

27

evidence presented tome to disturb the decision and award thatwasmadeintheJune1stletter.” Mr.DevinetestiUiedthathewasnotawarewhetherMr.Tulino,Mr.MooreorMr.Mohl,hadhadanyconversationsabouttheSPSSwithanyotherindividualsbetweenJune1standAugust7th,2015.Mr.DevinetestiUiedthattherewereseveraltimesduringthatperiod that he was called into Mr. Tulino’s ofUice to discuss the SPSSdetermination.

Mr.DevinetestiUied,inresponsetoquestionsbytheUSPS,thatMr.Tulinohadnot indicated in that initialmeetingwhat resulthewantedreachedafterreconsideringtheJune1stdetermination.Mr.DevinealsotestiUiedthatMr.Tulino,betweenthatUirstmeetingandtheissuanceofthe revised determination on August 7th, did not indicate in whatdirectionhewantedthedeterminationtogo.AfterMr.DevinereviewedthetestimonyofMr.DeanatthehearingonMarch20,2019,totheeffectthattheyhaddecidedthatthe“inductionemployeewasmoreproperlyadistribution function that belonged to the clerk craft, and that’s whatprecipitated the August 7th decision,” after meeting again with Mr.Tulinowith that recommendation. Mr.Deanalsohad testiUied that, atthat time, the proposed revision was unanimous. Mr. Devine agreedwithMr.Dean’sdescription. Mr.Devine,alsowasaskedabouttheOCRdecisionofArbitratorZumas,whichmachinehandleslettersratherthanparcels, as a distribution function which speciUically was included inRI-399asbeingperformedbyClerksbutnowwasbeingperformedbythe machine and, for that reason, Arbitrator Zumas had awarded theworkof operating themachine to theClerks. Mr.Devine agreedwiththatdescription.

Mr.Devine testiUied, in response toquestionsby theAPWU, thatMr.Mlkar,atthetimeinquestion,wasaUSPSManageratheadquarters,in charge of contract compliance. Mr. Devine agreed that, on themorning after the issuance of the June 1st determination letter, Mr.MlkartoldMr.DevineandMr.Deanthathedisagreedwithit.Mr.DevinetestiUiedthathehadnotbeenontheUieldtriptoseetheAPPSmachinebefore that decision was made because he had not been in LaborRelationsatthattime. Mr.DevinealsohadnotbeenontheUieldtriptosee the operation of the APPS between the June 1st and August 7thdeterminations. Mr. Devine testiUied thatMr. Dean andMr.Mohl hadbeenonthosetrips.

28

TestimonyRegardingSortingMachines

The following summarizes the testimony at the hearings on themerits of Kevin Fletcher, NPMHU, Pat Vasquez, APWU, Ron Suslak,APWU,andJohnProkity,USPS.

KevinFletchertestiUiedonbehalfoftheNPMHUthatcurrentlyheworksastheNPMHU’sNationalCADRepresentativeandservesasthatUnion’sNationalDisputeResolutionCommitteeforRI-399matters.Mr.Fletcher,amongprevious assignments, had served as a LocalUnionPresident,Local305,coveringaseveral-stateareaandastheNPMHU’smemberofaRegionalDisputeResolutionCommitteefortheEasternarea.

PatVasquezwhotestiUiedonbehalfoftheAPWU,currentlyservesastheClerk Craft Director for the APWU’s Local Union in Flushing, Queens,NewYork. Currently,Mr.Vasquez isemployedbytheUSPSasanSPSSOperator. Mr. Vasquez previously had performed work as a manualdistribution Clerk, as an FSM Operator, as an OCR-BCS Operator andthenasanSPBSOperator.Mr.Vasquez

RonSuslak,whotestiUiedonbehalfoftheAPWU,currentlyservesasthePresident of the Queens area Local in New York, APWU RegionalCoordinator, Vice President of the New York State APW and aRepresentativeontheNationalRI-399DisputeResolutionCommitteeattheAPWU’sheadquarters. Mr.SuslakalsohadservedontheRegionalDisputeResolutionCommitteewhich reviewedappeals from theLocalDispute Resolution Committee. If cases were not resolved at theRegional level, the dispute could be appealed to arbitration at theRegional level, at which Mr. Suslak presented cases or served as awitness. Mr. Suslak also worked on a project to review all of thejurisdictional disputes pending at the Regional level. The committeealso worked on a process to formulate an inventory of jurisdictionalassignments upon which all three Parties could agree. Mr. SuslaktestiUiedthatthefunctionoftheNationalDisputeResolutionCommittee,onwhich he has served since 2014, is to take a look at jurisdictionaldeterminationsmadebytheNationalUSPSandprovidepositionpapersastowhytheworkshouldbeassignedtoemployeesofoneortheotherCraftanddealwithdisputesUiledattheNationallevelordisputesUiledatthelocalorregionallevels.

29

According toMr. Suslak, theNationalCommitteealsoworkedonthe“resettingandrewritingthisdisputeresolutionprocess.” Mr.SuslaktestiUied that the Parties at theNational level Uinally came upwith anagreementonthestatusquo intheRegional jurisdictionaldisputes in15of17pendingcases,whichbothUnionsagreedtowithdrawwithoutprejudice. The USPS agreed, in exchange for the withdrawals of thependingcases toa Uinancialpaymentof$14.5million foreachCraft todistributetoitsmembers. ThePartiesreachedagreementforarevisedRI-399 Dispute Resolution Procedure on June 26, 2018. The twojurisdictionaldisputespreservedwere: theAdvancedFaceandCancelSystem; and the SPSS [the instant grievances], which involved onegrievanceUiledbytheNPMHUandagrievanceUiledbytheAPWU.

JohnProkity,who testiUiedonbehalf of theUSPS,was assigned, at thetimetheUSPSmadethedeterminationofjobsontheSPSS,totheUSPS’sWorld Class Package Platform Group “to develop strategies for thegrowingpackagevolumeinthePostalService.Myportionofthatwastoworkon. . . identifyinganddeployingasorterthatcouldbeobtainedquicklyanddeployedquicklybecausepackagegrowthwashappeningsoquickly. Mr. Prokity also had served as a Chairperson of an RI-399committee while he was a manager of in-plant support and a plantmanager.

PSM

Mr. Suslak testiUied for the APWU, with regard to the Package SorterMachine-PSM, that“Itwasaparcelsortermachine. Andactually, thefacility that Iworked in back in the ‘70s actually had this PSM, and itreallywasasimpleparcelsortingmachine.Thereweretwoclerksuponastation. Oneclerkwouldactually - - themailwouldcomeup - -after itwasdumped into thesystem, themailwouldcomeupandoneclerk would face the mail, almost like a center giving it to thequarterback. Youwouldfacethemailandtherewasakeyedrightnexttothem.Andhewouldfaceitsothekeyed--theaddresswasfaceupandthekeyedwouldputinakeycode,anditjustwentonitswayandwent down to runouts and therewere clerks at the bottom. And theclerkswouldsortitalittlefurtherintotheparcels - - intothesacks,andtheywouldtieitoutandtheywerethrowitonatakeawaybelttheyused to call it, and go into the system that way. That was the Uirst

30

machinethatI’mawareof,parcelsortermachineon105operation....Andthenofcoursethe’88IguesstheSPBScamearound....”

Mr. Suslak testiUied, on cross-examination by the NPMHU, withregardtotheassignmentofClerksonthePSM: “Isaidtherewouldbetwoclerksusuallyuponakeyingstation. Andonewouldfaceitfortheclerkthatwouldkeyitandtheywouldrotate.Andthenthemail,afteritwaskeyed, itwould comedowna runout. And in those runouts theyhadaseriesofrackssetup,andtherewereclerks in there thatwouldsortthemevenfurtherintotheseracks.”Mr.SuslaktestiUied:“ThePSM,myexperiencewithitwasaround19- -- itwasactuallyinafacilityIworkedinaround1981,thismachine,1980,1981.Iassumeithadtobecome in the late ’70s, because I don’t really [sic] there was a newmachinebeingdevelopedthen. Butthat’smyUirstexperiencewiththatparcelsortingmachine,anditwascalledPSM.AnditwasattheAMCinNewYork. And theyhad itatseveral, I think,bulkmailcentersmighthavehadit.”

Mr. Prokity testiUied for the USPS, with regard to the Package SorterMachine - PSM, with reference to a modern PSM, that they weredesignedforbiggerpackages,ittakespackagesupto27incheslong,and17-18incheswide. AccordingtoMr.Prokity: “Butwhatthisactuallyhasisitactuallyhasbothpartsofwhatwehaveonourothersorters.ItactuallyhasanSSIUononesideofitandinductionstationsontheothersideofit. Soonthismachinemailhandlersdumpthemail,itcomesuptheslides, itgoesthroughtheSSIU,andiseitherinducted.-- if it’snotread it can come over her4e on the induction station, and clerksinductedthemailintothePSMfromtheinductionstation.Andtheyareable tobothscanandkey. Sweeping isdonebyclerksonrotationbutmainly mail handlers. And a lot of the PSMs are very big machines.Theycanhaveupto300,400actualrunouts”.

SmallParcelandBundleSorter-SPBS

Mr.Fletcher,testiUiedfortheNPMHUthattheworkontheSmallParceland Bundle Sorter - SPBS, “. . . is assigned primarily - - the craftdeterminationsays themailhandlersare theprimarycraft. Normally,themachinesaresetupwithfourtosixkeyingstations. Thosekeyingstationswereassignedtotheclerkcraft. Therewasalsoanasterisk.--

31

well,thesweepingduties,thedumpingandpullingthecontainerswereallassignedtothemailhandlercraftaspartofdealingwitharotationwiththeSPBSkeyers,theclerkkeyers. Theywereallowedtosweeptomaketherotationwiththekeyers.Themailhandlersweretheprimarycrafttosweep.Andifittookmoresweepersthanwereneededtomakethe rotation, theywould come from the primary craft, whichwas themail handlers.” Mr. Fletcher testiUied,with regard to the keyingworkperformedby theClerks: “Thekeyersatmy facilityweresettingonastool. Whenabundleorparcelcomeuptothem,theirkeystation,theywouldlookatit,theywouldkeyinaZIPcodeorsomethingorother,andeithertheywouldeitherputitontothebeltinfrontofthemoritwouldkickout itself.” Mr.FletchertestiUiedthat,whentheyUirstreceivedtheSPBSathisfacilitytherewerefourkeystations,withadumpingsectionorareaforeachkeyingstation.Themailwasdumpedintoahopperandthen went on to the keyer. Mr. Fletcher testiUied that, between thehopper and the keyer, if pieces were too big or not machinable, theywould be pulled out. Subsequently, the operation was modiUied byaddingawiretainerwhichtheMailHandlerloaded,shutthedoors,raisea bar and then dump the container. The parcels would end on aconveyor belt where another Mail Handler was stationed, who wouldeitherraketheboxesdownontothebeltandthenpulloutpiecesorcullparcels that were too large or non-machinable. These parcels wereplaced in a separate container to be worked somewhere else in thefacility. The remaining parcels would continue on a conveyor, up aninclinetotheClerksatthekeyingstations.

Mr.FletchertestiUied,withregardtothesweepingfunctionontheSPBS: “Thesweepingwasdoneontwosidesofthemachine. Themailwouldgodowntheconveyorandcomeoutbothsides intocontainers.Thosecontainerswould - - couldbetheirsacks,APCs - - whicharelikewirecages--boxes,andsoforth.Themailwoulddropintothosecontainersbasedonwhatwaskeyedbytheclerkemployee. Andoncetheywerefull,thesweeperwouldpullthoseboxes,sacks,etcetera,offand into a staging area and replace with something - - an emptycontainer.

Mr. Fletcher, on cross-examination by the APWU, testiUiedregardingkeyingandsingulatingontheSBPS:“Thepiececomestothem[the Clerk], they would key it, and they would put it onto the belt, ifthat’swhat youwant to call it, singulating.” Mr. Fletcher agreed that,aftertheMailHandleremployeedumpsthemailonabeltwhichcarries

32

the mail to the Clerk, the Clerk picks up one piece of mail, whichconstitutes“singulating,”whichpiecetherebyisdesignatedasthepiecetobeprocessed.Mr.Fletcheradded,“Ireallytakesingulatingbeingthatwe’retakingitandwe’reputtingitontoasquareonthismachine,andit’s going. All you’redoing ispicking itupand sending itdown.” Mr.FletcheragreedthattheClerkalsoperformed“facing”ofthepiece.

Mr.SuslaktestiUied,fortheAPWU,thattheSPBScameintousein1988.Mr. Suslak testiUied,with regard to how themail reaches the keyer ontheSPBS,“It’sdumped - - themailhandlerswoulddumpit in.” Mr.Suslak testiUied,with regard to thekeying functionon theSPBS: “Theclerkwasatthekeyingstation. Therewereanywherefromfourtosixkeyingstationsgoingonand,ofcourse,theamountofstationsthatwerebeingoperated,thatwouldactuallyimpacttheamountofsweepersyouhadbecauseIthinkitwasuptofourstations.YouusetwosweepersinarotationandthenUiveandsix - - ifyouhaveUiveorsixstations,youhavethreesweepersina--threeclerksweepersinarotation.Andtheclerks, themailwouldcomeup. They’spull itoff thebelt. Youknow,they’dface - - they’dpositionitandtheywouldputinakeycodeandpush it on itsway.” With regard to “positioning” themail,Mr. SuslaktestiUied, “Theypickuptheparcelandtheywouldput it rightdown infrontofthem,okay,onabelt,andtheywouldputinakeycode.”

Mr.ProkitytestiUied,fortheUSPS,thattheUirsttypeofpackagesortingmachine used by the USPS was the Small Parcel and Bundle Sorter -SPBS, in the 1980s. According toMr. Prokity: “Itwas a conUigurablemachine. Inthiscaseyouhavefourinclineconveyorsandaninductionstation,fourinductionstations.“Inthiscaseit’sasinglebackbone,soitdoesn’t rotate around like the SPSS. And then you have a number ofoutputs. Inthiscasethisdrawingshows50oneitherside. Sothisisahundredinductmachine.IthaseffectivelythesamesectionsofanSPSS,which is the incline conveyors, the induct station, a central backbone,andthechutescomeout.”

Mr.ProkitytestiUiedwithregardtohowtheSPBSdifferedfromtheSPSS(atissueherein):“TheSPBSwasakeyingonly.Atthetimeithadakeystationandtherewouldbeasortprogramin,andtheycouldeitherdothree-digitorUive-digitkeyingusingmemorycodes.Iwillsaythatina lotof cases theywouldaddsomesortofadumperhere just likewe

33

haveontheSPSS.” AccordingtoMr.Prokity,thedumpingandsweepingfunctionsontheSPBSwerethesameasontheSPSS:“OntheSPBSmailhandlers dumped, clerks keyed and helped sweep in rotation. Theremainderofthesweepersaremailhandlers.”

AutomatedParcelandBundleSorter-APBS

Mr. Fletcher testiUied, for the NPMHU, with regard to the AutomatedParcelandBundleSorter-APBS,hadfourkeyingstations.AccordingtoMr.Fletcher:“Theyreducedthekeyingstationstonormallyone,andtheotherstations,alltheydidwasinduct.Itreadautomaticallythebarcodeortheaddress.” Mr.FletchertestiUiedthat,whenthejobdeterminationbytheUSPSissued,theNPMHUUiledagrievance“...becausetheyhadtakenthekeyingfunctionawayandwenttofacingandinductionthatitwasmoreakintomailhandlingcraftwork.”ThejobjurisdictiondisputeconcerningtheAPBSwasresolvedbythePartiesintheupdatedRI-399MOUofJune2018.Mr.FletcherdescribedthesweepingfunctionontheAPBSasthesameashedescribedontheSPBS.

Mr. Suslak testiUied, for the APWU, that theNPMHU - as part of theRevised RI-399Dispute Resolution Procedure, dated June 26, 2018 -agreed towithdraw the pending jurisdictional dispute concerning theAPBS,withoutprejudice. Mr.Suslak testiUied that “. . . in2011theytookthatSPBSandtheyactuallyretroUittediy[sic,it]intoanAPBS.Andliterallyalltheydidwasputscanningunitson. Itwasthesamesetup,andnowyoudidn’tevenhavetokeyonitforthemostpart. Thatwastheintentoftheservicewastodoawaywiththekeyingandjusthaveaninductionthere,anditwouldbescannedautomatically. Anditwasthesamemachine. ItwasretroUitthatway. Andtheyhad --usuallytheyleftmaybeonekeyed formis-septsand things that couldn’tbekeyed.”Mr. Suslak testiUied that, after the APBS was retroUitted as the SPBS,“Well, theclerktakestheparcel. Itgets inductedbythemailhandlersthroughtheloadingsystemthatwasdescribedearlier.Itcomesdownaslide. Theypullthemailoutandtheykindoffaceit,singularitrightonthebelt,anditgoesonitsway,assumingtheyarenotkeying. Eightyto90 percent of themail that I’m familiar with is usually just inducted.Theyarenotusingkeyers. . . . Gottoplaceitsothescannerwouldbeabletoidentifyit....Well,Iimagineitwouldbefacedup.Thescanner

34

is right on top.” Mr. Suslak testiUied that he had not worked on theAPBS.”

Mr.ProkitytestiUied,fortheUSPS,thattheAutomatedParcelandBundleSorter - APBS, was modiUied for scanning. “When it became theautomatedpackageandbundlesorter,anoverheadcamerawasadded,likewehaveontheSPSS,andtheinductionchangedtobeingabletojustmanuallyfaceandinductororientandinductundertheOCR.AndthentheOCRBCRreadercamerawouldaddtothesort.”Mr.ProkitytestiUiedthattheAPBShadkeyingstations: “Infact,there’sadirectfeedtothiskeying station, but the keying stations on some of the stations wereavailable.”

Mr. Prokitty testiUied that the APBS “was alsomodiUiedwith theloosemailsystemsothattheycoulddump,themailpieceswouldcomeup these incline conveyors and then automatically go down to theinduction stations. What this allowed, insteadofhavingan individualperson dumping on each induction station, it allowed us to centralizethedumpingfunctionhereandmoveup.” AccordingtoMr.Prokity,theoriginal APBS had an individual person on each station like the SPSSnow. The dumping function remained with the Mail Handlers, theinductionfunctionremainedwiththeClerksandthesweepingincludedClerks,forrotationalpurposes,alongwiththeMailHandlers.

AutomatedParcelPostSystem-APPS

Mr. Fletcher testiUied for the NPMHU with respect to the AutomatedParcelPostSystem - APPS,whichsolelywasstaffedbyMailHandlerCraftemployees.AccordingtoMr.Fletcher:“Theywould.--theywouldobtain the mail, set the machine up with the containers around themachine.AsIsaid,theywouldretrievethemailfromthestagingarea... . Theywoulddumpitonto.--theywoulduseacontainerdumpertodump it onto a conveyor. Themailwould go up a conveyorwhere itwouldbesingulatedintothemachine.” Mr.FletchertestiUied: “There’sanemployeeonaraisedplatformsomewhereafterthedumpingstationthat dealt with rejects, and that was a mail handler craft employee.Piecesthatwouldnotbehandledbythemachineoriginallywouldgoinarejectarea. Itwouldcomeback to thismailhandlerwhowasdoingtherejects,whowouldpickupthepiece,andthentheywouldsingular.

35

Theywouldstickitwhere. --setituprightwhereitneededtobesoitcould be read by the cameras or what have you. They put it on themachine,anditwouldbeinducted. . . . Theyhadtofaceittogetittowhere the machine would read it.” There was no keying. The MailHandlerCraftemployeesalsoperformedallofthesweeping.

Mr. Fletcher described the sweeping function on the APPS, asfollows: “TheAPPS ismoreor less the sameway [as theSPBS]. Themailwoulddropintocontainersandbepulledback.AtthatpointontheAPPS,themailhandlerwoulddothesweepingastherewerenoclerksassignedtothemachine.

Mr. Fletcher, on cross-examination by the APWU, described theperformance of “facing” by a Mail Handler on the APPS: “It’s myunderstanding that once the mail was dumped on the machine, theAPPS, itwouldgo - - itwouldbeinductedintothemachine. Idon’tknowthatthemailhandlerwasfacingitatthatpoint. Onceit - - ifitwent to themachine and themachine rejected it, then itwould comebacktotherejectareawherethemailhandlerwouldhavetofaceit.Hewouldhavetosituateitcorrectlysoitwillgothroughthemachine.”Mr.Fletcher agreed that theMail Handler employees who dump themailontothebeltdonotperformanysingulatingorfacing. Mr.Fletcher,oncross-examinationbytheUSPS,testiUied,withregardtothepercentageofmailthattheMailHandlerhastofaceafterithasbeenrejected: “It’sgenerallyquiteabitbecausethatemployeehastostaytherethewholetimethemachineisrunningbecausethereisquiteabitisgoingtocomebacktothem.Sotheycan’tjustdisappear.They’vegottokeep--staytherewiththemachine.”

Mr.SuslaktestiUiedfortheAPWUthattheAPWUagreed-aspartofthesettlement of pending grievances under the Revised RI-399 DisputeResolutionProcedures,datedJune26,2018 - towithdrawitspendingjurisdictional dispute on the APPS, without prejudice. Mr. SuslaktestiUied, with regard to the APPS, that “we kind of felt from thebeginningthatitwasjustadifUicultmachine.Itwasabigfootprint.It’sreally only one job, asKevin [Fletcher]mentioned earlier. The fellowwouldstanduponaplatformandonlyreallytouchedthemailifitwasareject. It wasn’t that it had induction stations clerks inducting mail,actually, because the machine singulated itself. So it was kind of adifferent footprint tobegin, really.” Mr. Suslakdistinguished theAPSS

36

from the APBS, “which we feel is almost identical to the SPSS.” Mr.SuslaktestiUiedthattheAPPScameintousein2004.

Mr.ProkitytestiUiedthattheAutomatedParcelPostSystem-APPS,“...isquiteabitdifferentthantheothermachineswe’ve lookedat. WhattheAPPShasisverymuchliketheAPBS. Ithasacentralizeddumpingarea. However,thisnextsectioniswhatwecallanSSIU. It’sasortandsingulation inductionunit. So in thisseriesofbelts - - this isasix-sidedscantunnel. Soinsteadofhavinganoverheadcamera,itactuallyhasasix-sidedcamerasoitcanscanallfoursidesofthebox,thefrontortheback. Sowheneverabarcodeoraddress is it cancatch it fromallsides.” According toMr. Prokity: “. . . when youdump themail itactuallyinclinesthemailbutalsosingulatesit. Sobythetimethemailpiecegoesthroughthescantunnel,it’sasinglepiecegoingthroughthescan tunnel. It then automatically comes around towhatwe call theshoesorter. And theshoesorterpushes thepieceonto to these threeinducts,neverbeinghandledbyanybody- - byaninductor. Onlythedumpingpartisdone,andthatismailhandlers.” Headded: “Themailthen goes into the backbone of the machine, which is cells. It alsorecirculatesverysimilartotheSPSS.Andagain,thisisconUigurable....we have some of these that have over 200 bins. Any pieces that areeitherdoublefedornotreadcanrejectandcomeheretowhatwecallthesemiauto. That iswhereasingleoperator,which in thiscase isamailhandler, facesthemailandputs it throughanotherscantunneltobereinfectedforinduction.” Mr.ProkitytestiUiedthat,ontheAPPS,nopackages are touched by the Mail Handlers during the inductionprocess. “Nothinginductedthroughtheshoesorterwhichisabout85,90percentofthemailistouchedbyanyone. Onlytherejectsordoublefeedsthatarenotabletobesingulatedandinductedtothesortergoesto the semiautomatic induct.” Mr.Prokity testiUied - with respect towhether any other machines have the unique function in which themachine itself is doing the singulation and the orientation of themailbefore it is distributed - “This SSIU is only on the APPS and on theretroUittedPSMs.”

SmallParcelSortingSystem-SPSS

Mr.FletchertestiUied,onbehalfoftheNPMHU,withregardtotheSmallParcel Sorting System - SPSS, the jobs in dispute in the instant

37

proceeding,thattherearethreetypesofjobsonthismachine.ThereareMail Handler Craft employees assigned to dump the mail into awiretainerwhichthenwaspushedintoacontainerdumper. Thisworkis similar towhataMailHandleremployeeperformson theSPBS, theAPBS,ortheAPPS.Theparcelsgoesonaconveyortoanemployeewhopicksupeachpiece,turnsitandplacesitonabelt.“Thatisthefacingorinduction, singulating, whatever you want to call it, that duty.” Mr.FletchertestiUiedthattheseemployeesdonotperformanykeyingwork.ThethirdtypeofworkinvolvespullingtheUilledcontainersawayfromthemachine,whichisthesweepingwork.

Mr.FletchertestiUiedthatontheSPSS,theClerkemployeewho,onthe SPBS would be keying at the keying station, does no keying.AccordingtoMr.Fletcher,“Thekeying,inmyopinion,wouldbetheclerkemployeeassistingwiththedistributionprocessbykeyinginaZIPcodeor a code. Without the keying function there’s no distribution beingperformedbyanemployee.Themachineisdoingthedistribution.”

Mr. Suslak testiUied, for the APWU, with regard to the function of theClerkontheSPSS: “Ithinkit’sprettymuchsimilar[i.e.,totheAPBS]. ImeantheclerkontheSPSSdoesprettymuchthesamething. Takesit,facesitsothescannerwillhititcorrectlyandbeabletoidentifyitandsortit. AndthenthereisthesweepingrotationsimilartotheAPBSontheSPSS. It’sprettymuch identical. Theyhave - - actually there isevenakeyerinthatthatwouldkeymis-sortsontheSPSS.Mis-sortsarekeyedontheAPBSattimes,onekeyeratbest. It’ like - - it’salmostidentical.”

Mr.ProkitytestiUiedfortheUSPS,withregardtotheSPSS,that,in2015,he began working on the the USPS’s World Class Package PlatformGroup. ThatgroupalreadyhadidentiUiedasorter,Eurosort,whichhadbeeninuseinEurope. TheUSPSordered26ofthesemachines,whichwere beingmodiUied andmade bigger. The initial deployment by theUSPS of the Uirst production machine was in July 2016. Currently,according toMr. Prokity, there are about 40 of thesemachines in use.Mr.ProkitytestiUiedthatthestandardconUigurationoftheSPSShasUiveinduction stations,with 196 bins. There are a few sites atwhich theSPSShasonlyfourinductionstationsandacoupleofsitesatwhichtheSPSSisslightlyshorter,becauseofthelackofspaceinthebuilding.

38

Mr.Prokity testiUied that theSPSSprocesses smallparcels, up to22 inches in length, 16 inches in width, and under 20 pounds. Mr.Prokity testiUied that he SPSS has the following equipment and isoperatedasfollows:

BulkHandlingConveyors: EachSPSShasUivebulkhandlingconveyorswhichhavecontainerunloaderswithattacheddumpers. Thepackagesinitially are loaded by employees into a container unloader. Thepackages are unloaded by employees by tilting the unloader anddumpingthepackagesontothebulkhandlingconveyorwhichproceedsbymoving thepackages, inabulk form,upan incline to the inductionstation. All of the dumping work is assigned to the Mail Handlers,representedbytheNPMHU,asthePrimaryCraft. ]Thisworkisnot indisputeinthisproceeding.]

Induction System: Each SPSS has Uive induction stations which arelocatedonaplatformabout10feetabovetheworkroomUlooronwhichthedumpingandsweepingfunctionsareperformed. Currently,Clerks,representedby theAPWU,havebeenassignedas thePrimaryCraft, toperform the disputed work at the induction stations. The Clerksassigned to work at the induction stations are assigned for two-hourperiodsandthenrotatedintothesweepingfunction(describedbelow).[TheassignmentoftheClerksasthePrimaryCrafttoperformtheworkattheinductionstationsandtheirassignmentaspartoftherotationhasbeengrievedhereinbytheNPMHUasimproper.TheAPWUhasgrievedas improper the assignment of any of the sweeping work to theMailHandlers.]

According toMr. Prokity,with regard to thework performed byClerksattheinductionstation: “. . . theoperatortakestheindividualpiece thathascomeup the inclineconveyorand faces itandorients itinto--...there’sthisinductiontemplate....Theyputthatintothat.--thatnotch,andthatallowsthepiecetobeorientedproperlytoinductinto the machine. There’s actually a three-stage induct. It’sautomaticallypulledaway from thatnotchand it goes into the secondsectionwhichisascannerandascale.AndsothatdetermineswhetherthepiecewillactuallyUitonthemachine,andifit’soverweightit’llstopthat belt and the operator has to remove that piece from it. It thenmoves into the - - to the timing belt, and then on to the injection

39

conveyor....Again,theoperatorwillplacethemailpieceintopositionone,andthentheconveyorsactuallyautomaticallymoveitthroughandinjectitintothesplit-trayconveyor.”AccordingtoMr.Prokity,thereisasensorattheinductionstationtokeepthepackagesfrompilingup.

The Parties stipulated that, at the time that the USPSmade thedetermination to assign Clerks to perform the work at the inductionstations,thekeyingstationhadnotyetbeenaddedtothemachinestheninuse. Attherelevanttime,theoperatorattheinductionstationcoulduseahand-heldscanneror,subsequently,theycouldkeyininformation,such as zip codes. Mr. Prokity testiUied that the USPS generally hasmoved from keying-in information to using optical character readersand barcode readers and that, currently, about 98 percent of thepackages can be read by the optical character reader or by a barcodereader.

Split-TraySorters:EachSPSShassplit-traysortersontheconveyor.Thepackageisinjectedintoacarriercellwhichhastwo“trap”doors,i.e.,thesplit-tray. “Asthecarriercellgoesaroundthemachine,asitgetstothechutethatisthepropersortlocation,thosetwodoorsopenupanddropthepieceintothechute.”

Run-OutChutes:Oncethepackageonthesplit-trayontheconveyorhasreachedtheproperlocation,ofthe196availablelocations,thesplit-trayopens and the package, if it destined for one of the locations on theinsideoftheSPSSmachine,isdroppeddirectlyfromthesplit-trayintoa“Gaylordbox”receptacle.Ifthepackageisdestinedforalocationontheother side of the SPSS machine, it is dropped onto a slide and thepackageslidesdownthechuteintoaspinnerrackwithsacks,orintoahamper,awiretainer,oraGaylordbox,whichevertypeofequipmentisbeingused. The receptacle, once it is Uilled, is removedaspartof thesweepingprocess.Theindividualperformingthesweepingcanturnoffaswitchwhichwillpreventpackagesfromcontinuingtobeloadedintothe receptacle until it has been replaced with an empty one. Thepackageonthesplit-traycancontinuetocirculateontheconveyor, forup to three cycles, until the receptacle for that location has beenreplaced.

40

The sweeping work was assigned to the Mail Handlers, as theprimarycraft,withtheClerksbeingassignedintothesweepingrotationforrelieffromtheirworkattheinductionstations. Mr.ProkitytestiUiedthat the sweeping function is “pretty segregated from the rest of theoperation,”suchthattheindividualswhoperformtheinductionworkdonothavetoperformthesweepingworkaswell. [Asnoted,theAPWUherein has claimed all of the sweeping work and has grieved theassignmentofanyofthesweepingworktotheMailHandlers,basedonits argument that all of the sweeping work appropriately should beassignedtotheClerksforrotationalpurposes.]

TestimonyRe:Operation105

Kevin Fletcher testiUied, on behalf of the NPMHU, with regard toOperation105,theMailHandlerswerelistedastheprimarycraftfortheloadingordumpingonthemechanizedparcelsorter,aswellasforitem6,pullinganddispatchingsacksorothercontainers. Mr.Fletchernotedthat the functionassigned to theClerkCraftwas: “Thedistributionofparcelpostortheuseofparcelsortingmachines.”Mr.FletchertestiUied:“Itwouldmean tome that theywere using some type ofmechanizedmachinerytosortparcelswithsometypeofkeyingandsoforthwouldbemyunderstanding.”

THEPARTIES’POSITIONS

Each of the Parties submitted a post-Arbitration hearing brief,whichwas received by the Arbitrator. Each of these briefs hereby isincorporatedbyreferenceinto,andmadeapartof,thisOpinion.

DISCUSSION

TheArbitratornotes that theNPMHUargued, in the initialArbitrationproceeding on the SPSS, that, once the USPS issued the SPSS CraftDetermination on June 1, 2015, in which all of the positions on the SPSSmachine were assigned to employees in the NPMHU bargaining unit as thePrimaryCraft,theUSPSwasprecludedfrommakinganyunilateralchanges,astheUSPSdidwhenthereafter it issuedtherevisedSPSSCraftDeterminationonAugust7,2015. Theissuesinvolvedinthatpreliminarymatter,regarding

41

the propriety of the action of the USPS in revising the initial SPSS jobdetermination were resolved by this Arbitrator in an Opinion and Award,dated December 2, 2016. That Opinion and Award is incorporated byreferenceandmadeapartoftheinstantOpinionandAward.

TheassignmentchangesontheSPSS-madebytheUSPSintherevisedcraftdeterminationissuedinAugust2015-infavorofemployeesintheClerkCraftrepresentedbytheAPWU,insteadofemployeesintheMailHandlerCraftrepresentedbytheNPMHU,areasfollows[asemphasized]:

The primary craft designation for the performance of duties foroperationoftheSPSSisasfollows:

1.RetrievalofpackagesfromastagingareaMailHandlerCraft2.Operatingacontainerdumperanddumpingpackagesontoinclinebelt MailHandlerCraft3.Singulating/separatingpackages&facing/feedingpackagesontoinductionbelt ClerkCraft4.*Sweepingpackages(removingfullcontainersandreplacingwithemptycontainers MailHandlerCraft5.Transportingfullcontainerstoastagingarea MailHandlerCraft

*Clerkcraftemployeesassignedtotheinductionstationswilldosobeforerotatingtootherduties.ClerkcraftemployeeswhorotatetoanotherworkassignmentwillperformsweepingdutiesontheSPSS.Personnelassignedtoperformsweepingdutiesinadditiontotheminimum number required to implement the subject rotationsystemwillbefromtheprimarycraft(mailhandler).[Emphasissupplied.]

***

The Arbitrator is not persuaded by the NPMHU’s position that,oncetheUSPShadissueditsdetermination,inthiscaseonJune1,2015,infavoroftheNPMHUasthePrimaryCraftforallofthepositionsontheSPSS, the USPS properly could not revise that determination and,instead, assign someof thepositionson theSPSS to theClerks, as thePrimaryCraft,and/orassignsomeofthesweepingdutiestotheClerkson the related basis of rotational purposes. TheNPMHU also disputes

42

the position of the APWU that the USPS should have assigned to theClerksallofthesweepingdutiesontheSPSS. TheArbitratornotesthattheParties,overthecourseofmanyyears,havenegotiatedandreUinedtheRI-399DisputeResolutionProcessand that thegoalof theRI-399process istheproperdeterminationbytheUSPSof Craftassignmentsonnewand revised equipment. TheArbitratornotes that theRI-399disputeresolutionprocesscan involveseveral levelsofproceedings,atthe local, regional and national levels, before, if necessary, the Uinalresolution of a disputed Craft determination in National Arbitration.TheArbitratornotesthattheissuancebytheUSPSattheNationallevelofadeterminationletterregardingtheCraftorCraftstobeassignedtoperform someor all of the functions on the new equipment, is issuedafterthesubmissionto,andreviewby,theUSPSofpositionstatementsbytheMPMHUandtheAPWU. TheArbitratornotesthateachParty -aswasdoneintheinstantcase-thencanUileagrievanceprotestingtheCraftdeterminationissuedbytheUSPS.

The Arbitrator Uinds that the USPS, at any point in this processafter it issues it’s initial Craft determination, for signiUicant reasons,properly may reconsider that initial determination in light of theconsiderations and arguments submitted by either or both of thecontesting Unions with regard to one or another of the Craftassignmentsmadeinthatinitialdetermination.TheArbitratorUindsnoexpresslanguagewhichrequiresacontraryresultintheRI-399DisputeResolution Procedures, either before or after the 2018 negotiatedrevisions, i.e., language which precludes such reconsideration forsigniUicantreasons.

TheArbitrator Uinds that, in light of the existence of theParties’detailed negotiated procedure for resolving these Craft jurisdictionaldisputes,andtheabsenceofexpress languageinthatprocedurewhichwouldrequiretheUSPStomaintainthatinitialCraftdeterminationevenifithasfoundsigniUicantreasonsforreconsiderationthereofand,uponsuch reconsideration, and found a signiUicant basis for a re-determination of the initial award of jobs on the newequipment, it isnot appropriate, nor is it warranted to hold that the USPS should befound precluded from making such a revision of its initial Craftdeterminationawardbasedonitsowndoubtsconcerningthevalidityofthatdetermination.Thatis,theArbitratorisnotpersuadedthatsuchareconsideration by the USPS, while appropriate if made pursuant tofurtheranalysisofmattersraisedbyoneorbothof theUnionposition

43

statements,shouldbefoundunwarrantedandprecludediftheimpetusforsuchreconsiderationinsteadisbaseduponthefurtherreUlectionofUSPS ofUicials who Uind a signiUicant reason for the reexamination oftheirinitialdetermination.

The Arbitrator Uinds that there is no dispute that thedetermination of Craft jobs on new equipment is a matter of greatimportance to: those employeeswho beneUit from the award of suchjobstotheirCraft; thoseemployeeswhoseCraftisnotselected; eachof the two Craft Unions involved, and those USPS ofUicials who areresponsible for the efUicient operation of the new equipment. In theArbitrator’s judgment, given this extensive negotiated RI-399 processfor the proper determination of Craft jobs on new equipment, thediscovery by the USPS that a possible error had been made in theirinitial award of Craft jobs on the SPSS, speciUically with regard towhetherthe“singulating”/“facing”workaspartoftheinductionprocessintothemachine,insteadshouldhavebeenawardedtotheClerksasthePrimary Craft, along with the associated assignment to those Clerksassigned to that work of sweeping, for rotational purposes only,constituted an appropriate basis for the USPS to review that initialdetermination and to thoroughly re-evaluate themany considerationswhicharerelevanttothedeterminationoftheappropriateCraftforeachworkfunctiononthenewSPSSequipment.

In this regard, the Arbitrator notes the testimony ofMr. Devine,whoalongwithMr.Deanwasresponsible for the initialdeterminationletter, to the effect that, his initial reaction toMr. Tulino’s direction toreconsider the soundness of that determination was that it had beencorrect. Nevertheless,Mr.Devinewasconvincedof thata changewasneededby the reevaluationof theworkperformedbyClerksonothermachines,includingUieldtripsbyMr.DeanandMr.Mohl.Thus,Mr.DeantestiUied:

Thefourofusinthatso-calledcommittee,wediscussedthat.We talkedaboutAllenMohl.And--myvisittoDulleslookingatthe APPS.WediscussedhowwelookedattheSPBSandAPBSand whattheinductingemployeewasactuallydoing....Andwe decidedthenthattheoperationoftheSPSS,inparticularthe inductionemployeewasmoreproperlyadistributionfunction thatbelongstotheclerkcraftandthat’swhatprecipitatedthe

44

August7thdecision.Ofcourse,weUirstwentbacktoMr.Tulino withourrecommendation.”

Mr.DeantestiUiedthattherevised“recommendation”toMr.TulinowasunanimousbyMr.Devine,Mr.Dean,Mr.MooreandMr.Mohl.TheUSPSthenissuedtherevisedCraftdeterminationonAugust7,2015.

The Arbitrator notes, with regard to whether the reviseddetermination, in August 2015, constituted arbitrary conduct or anabuse of discretion by the USPS, that, pursuant to the RI-399DisputeResolution Procedure, each of the Unions, after the issuance of thereviseddecisionletteronAugust7,2015,hadtherightto,anddid,Uileaprotest regarding one or more aspects of this revised determination.TheRI-399proceduresprovidesthePartieswithaprocessfortheUinalresolutionofsuchdisputes. ACraftdeterminationbytheUSPS,evenarevised determination, is not a =inal determination at least to theanticipatedextentthateitherorbothoftheUnionswillchallengeoneormore of the Craft determinations. That is, the determination by theUSPS is not a Uinal action to the extent that it is subject to reviewthroughtheestablishedRI-399process.TheArbitrator,forthisreason,isnotpersuadedthattheDecisionoftheSupremeCourt,MotorVehicleManufacturers Ass’n. v. State FarmMutual, 463 U. S. 29 (1983), relieduponbytheNPMHU,isapplicabletotheinstantdisputeconcerningtheproper determination of Craft positions on the SPSS,which involves anegotiateddisputeresolutionprocess,RI-399,inwhichadeterminationby the USPS is subject to challenge by either or both Unions as afundamental part of that process and is not a Uinal resolution unlessneitherUnionraisessuchachallenge.

ThereisnodisputethateachoftheseUnionshadtherightto,anddid,present theirevidenceandarguments in thecourseof the instantArbitration proceeding as to which of the Craft determinations, asinitiallyissuedbytheUSPS,orasrevised,shouldbefoundappropriate.Thesedisputesincludetheproprietyof:theinitialawardbytheUSPSinthe June1stdeterminationofallof the jobsontheSPSS, includingthe“singulating”/“facing” work and all of the sweeping work, to theMailHandlers, as the Primary Craft; an award by theUSPS in the reviseddeterminationofAugust7th, to theClerks,as thePrimaryCraft,of the“singulating”/“facing”workontheSPSS,whichwork,theUSPSandtheAPWUargue,constituteessentialelementsofthe“distribution”function

45

which has been recognized as the work of the Clerks as the PrimaryCraft, andwhichwork, therefore, should be assigned, pursuant to theAugust 7th award, to the Clerks as the Primary Craft; the APWU alsoclaimsallofthesweepingworkontheSPSStotheClerks; theawardtotheClerks,asthePrimaryCraft,ofallofthe“distribution”workontheSPSS, i.e., the “singulating”/“facing” duties as part of the inductionprocess, as well as an award to the Clerks of sweeping work, forrotationalpurposesonly.

For the followingreasons, theArbitratorconcludes that the UinalCraft assignments on the SPSS made by the USPS in the reviseddeterminationissuedonAugust7,2015,reasonablywerebasedontheappropriate reconsideration by USPS ofUicials of relevant factors,including:theprinciplessetforthintherulesestablishedbythePartiesfor making Craft determinations, including the RI-399 DisputeResolution Procedures and criteria; previous Craft determinationsmade by the USPS in light of the nature of thedistribution-typeworkperformed by Clerks as the Primary Craft on other sortingmachines;and Craft determinations resolved pursuant to prior jurisdictionaldisputeArbitrationawards.TheArbitratorconcludesthatthereevaluationbytheUSPSofUicials,afterquestionswereraisedwithintheUSPS about the correctness of the June 1st determination, resulted in

the revised August 7thy award by the USPS: to the Clerks, as thePrimary Craft, of the “singulating”/“facing” duties on the SPSS,which,the Arbitrator Uinds, the USPS reasonably determined constitutedsigniUicant aspects of the distribution function which historically andtraditionally have been assigned to Clerks, as the Primary Craft; andalsotheawardofsweepingduties,forrotationalpurposesonly,tothoseClerkswhowereassignedtoperformtheworkof“singulating”/“facing”ofparcelsontheSPSS.

Typetoentertext

46

Consequently, theArbitrator Uinds,with respect to the grievanceUiledbytheNPMHU,thatthatgrievanceisdenied,insofarastheNPMHUhasclaimedonbehalfofMailHandlers,as thePrimaryCraft,allof theworkontheSPSS,includingtheassignmenttoperformtheworkontheplatformof“singulating”/“facing”ofparcelsbeforeplacingthemontheinduction belt and the sweepingwork for rotational purposes for theindividualsperformingthatwork.TheNPMHU’sgrievanceissustainedtotheextentthatitopposedAPWU’sclaimforallofthesweepingdutiesoftheSPSS. TheArbitratorUinds,withrespecttothegrievanceUiledbytheAPWU,thatthatgrievanceissustainedtotheextentthattheAPWUhasclaimedonbehalfof theClerks,as thePrimaryCraft, thedutiesof“singulating”/“facing” parcels on the SPSS as signiUicant aspects of thedistribution function which historically and traditionally has beenassignedtoClerks,asthePrimaryCraft.TheArbitratoralsosustainstheAPWU’sgrievancetotheextentthat ithasclaimedsweepingdutiesontheSPSS forrotationalpurposesonly, i.e., theAPWU’sgrievance isnotsustainedtotheextentthattheAPWUclaimedallofthesweepingworkperformedontheSPSS.

TheDisputeConcerningThe“Distribution”FunctionontheSPSS

The Arbitrator concludes, for the following reasons, that the reviseddeterminationbytheUSPSregardingthePrimaryCrafttobeawardedthejobson the platform of the SPSS which perform the “distribution” functionreasonablywas based on appropriate considerations. The Arbitrator notesthatMr.Devine,Mr.Dean,Mr.MohlandMr.Moore,hadbeendirectedbyVicePresident Tulino that they were to review the initial June 1st Craftdetermination to see if it had been correct. The Arbitrator concludes thatthese ofUicials acted reasonably insofar as they: visited the operation of theSPSS and other machines, including the APBS, on which Clerks performedarguably comparable functions of “singulating” and “facing” parcels, but nokeying,which“distribution”worktheUSPShadawardedtotheClerksasthePrimary Craft; considered the history of Craft determinations on othermachines; considered the negotiated Craft determination principles; andconsidered the Uindings set forth in prior Arbitration awards resolvingjurisdictional disputes. The Arbitrator Uinds that the factors considered bytheseofUicialswereappropriate formaking the revisedCraftdeterminationson the SPSS and, cumulatively, constituted a reasonable basis for: the re-evaluationbytheUSPSofitsinitialawardofalloftheworkontheSPSStothe

47

MailHandlersasthePrimaryCraft; itsconclusionthatthatinitialawardhadbeen incorrect; and its revision of that initial determination to award the“singulating”/“facing”work in the inductionprocess to theClerkCraft,alongwithsweepingworkforrotationalpurposesonly.

TheArbitrator Uinds that thedispute in thisproceedingcenterson theproperevaluationofthe“distribution”functionontheSPSS.Itisevidentthat,over the course of the evolution and development of various machinesdevelopedforletterandparcelsorting,theUSPShassoughttoautomatesomeor all aspects of the distribution function which previously have beenperformedmanuallybyClerksasthePrimaryCraft.Thequestionwhichmustbe resolved in this case, as in each such case, iswhether the ofUicials of theUSPS who performed the review of the initial Craft determination actedreasonably in all of the circumstances and based on appropriate criteria indeterminingthat,inessence,theworkindisputehereiniswithinthetypeofdistributionworktraditionallyassignedtoClerksasthePrimaryCraft.

TheArbitratornotes that theparticular circumstances involved in thiscaseincludethefollowingtasksontheSPSSmachine: MailHandlers, inthisproceeding, are the undisputed Primary Craft for the prepatory work ofdumpingparcelsontotheconveyorswhichtakestheparcelsupaninclinetoaplatform at which the disputed work is performed before each parcel isinducted into the SPSS. The disputed work consists of separating or“singulating”eachparcelas itcomesupthe inclinebytakingtheparceland,while“facing”it,i.e.,orientingtheparcelsothattheaddresscanbereadbytheOCR scanner, placing the parcel onto the induction belt so that it can bescannedand,thereby, inductedintothemachine. Theparcelsareforwardedby the SPSS to a “split-tray” conveyor beltwhich rotates through 196 or sopossibledestinations.Whentheparcelonthesplit-trayisabovethechuteforthecorrectdestination,thesplit-trayisopenedbythemachineandtheparcelis injected into the cell and then into the receptacle which can be one ofvarioustypesofwirebaskets,sacks,etc.Thissweepingwork,pursuanttotheCraftdeterminationsofJune1standAugust7th,whichinvolvedremovingthefullreceptaclesandreplacingthem,wasawardedtotheMailHandlersasthePrimaryCraft,withthoseClerkswho,intherevisedCraftdetermination,wereawardedthe“singulating”and“facing”dutiesontheSPSS,alsowereawardedsweepingduties,forrotationalpurposesonly.

TheArbitrator Uinds that theUSPSofUicialswhoreevaluated the initialaward of June 1st, reasonably concluded, in the revised August 7thdetermination,thatthedutiesof“singulating”parcels,i.e.,placingeachparcel

48

on an individual section of the belt, and “facing” each parcel so that theaddress can be read by the OCR which permits the SPSS machine to“distribute” the parcels automatically by means of the induction belt bysendingeachparcel to thecorrect location,constitutedsigniUicantaspectsofthe traditional “distribution” function,whichhistorically havebeen assignedto Clerks as thePrimaryCraft. In this regard, theArbitrator notes that thePartiesagreedthat,asofAugust7th,thedateofthereviseddetermination,no“keying”workwas performed by any employee on the SPSS. To the extentthat, subsequently, somekeyingworkwasperformedbyClerkson theSPSS,thatcircumstance-havingbegunafterthedisputedworkwasawardedtotheClerks,suchthatitwasnotarelied-uponconsiderationbytheUSPSofUicials-has not been considered relevant by the Arbitrator herein in reaching thisdecisionandaward.

TheArbitratorisnotpersuadedthatthetotalabsenceof“keying”workon the SPSS properly should have precluded the USPS ofUicials fromconsidering the remaining “singulating”/“facing” duties performed on theplatform(s) of the SPSS as constituting elements of the traditional“distribution” function which duties, historically, have been awarded to theClerks to perform as the Primary Craft. The Arbitrator agrees with therespectivepositionsoftheUSPSandoftheAPWUthat,althoughno“keying”isinvolved on the SPSS, nevertheless the duties of “singulating” and “facing”parcelsontheplatform,sothattheactual“distribution”canbeaccomplishedbytheautomaticoperationoftheSPSSmachine,areofsufUicientsigniUicance,giventheamountofsuchworkperformedontheSPSS(asdiscussedbelow),andrelevantandintegraltothe“distribution”function,tosupporttheAugust7thawardoftheperformanceofthisworktotheClerksasthePrimaryCraft.

TheArbitratornotesthetestimonyofMr.FletcherfortheNPMHUwithrespecttotheAutomatedParcelPostSystem- APPS,whichsolelywasstaffedbyMailHandlerCraftemployees.AccordingtoMr.Fletcher:“Theywould.--theywouldobtainthemail,setthemachineupwiththecontainersaroundthemachine. AsIsaid,theywouldretrievethemailfromthestagingarea....Theywoulddumpitonto.--theywoulduseacontainerdumpertodumpitontoaconveyor.Themailwouldgoupaconveyorwhereitwouldbesingulatedintothemachine.” Mr.FletchertestiUied: “There’sanemployeeonaraisedplatformsomewhereafterthedumpingstationthatdealtwithrejects,andthatwasamailhandlercraftemployee. Pieces that would not be handled by the machine originallywouldgo inarejectarea. Itwouldcomebacktothismailhandlerwhowasdoingtherejects,whowouldpickupthepiece,andthentheywould

49

singulate.Theywouldstickitwhere.--setituprightwhereitneededtobesoitcouldbereadbythecamerasorwhathaveyou.Theyputitonthemachine,anditwouldbeinducted. . . . Theyhadtofaceittogetittowhere the machine would read it.” There was no keying. The MailHandler Craft employees also performed all of the sweeping. Theywouldstickitwhere. --setituprightwhereitneededtobesoitcouldbereadbythecamerasorwhathaveyou. Theyput itonthemachine,anditwouldbeinducted. . . . Theyhadtofaceittogetittowherethemachinewouldreadit.”[Emphasissupplied.]Therewasnokeying. TheMailHandlerCraftemployeesalsoperformedallofthesweeping.

TheArbitrator credits the testimony ofMr. Prokity for theUSPSthat the Automated Parcel Post System - APPS, “. . . is quite a bitdifferentthantheothermachineswe’velookedat.WhattheAPPShasisverymuchliketheAPBS.Ithasacentralizeddumpingarea.However,thisnextsectioniswhatwecallanSSIU. It’sasortandsingulationinductionunit.Sointhisseriesofbelts--thisisasix-sidedscantunnel.Soinsteadofhavinganoverheadcamera,itactuallyhasasix-sidedcamerasoitcanscanallfoursidesofthebox,thefrontortheback.Sowheneverabarcodeoraddressisitcancatchitfromallsides.”AccordingtoMr.Prokity:“...whenyoudumpthemailitactuallyinclinesthemailbutalsosingulatesit.So by the time themail piece goes through the scan tunnel, it’s a singlepiecegoingthroughthescantunnel. Itthenautomaticallycomesaroundtowhatwecalltheshoesorter.Andtheshoesorterpushesthepieceontotothesethreeinducts,neverbeinghandledbyanybody--byaninductor.Only the dumping part is done, and that is mail handlers.” He added:“Themailthengoesintothebackboneofthemachine,whichiscells. ItalsorecirculatesverysimilartotheSPSS.Andagain,thisisconUigurable....wehavesomeofthesethathaveover200bins.Anypiecesthatareeitherdoublefedornotreadcanrejectandcomeheretowhatwecallthesemiauto. That iswherea singleoperator,which in this case isamailhandler, faces the mail and puts it through another scan tunnel to bereinfectedforinduction.”[Emphasissupplied.]

TheArbitratornotesparticularlyMr.Prokity’s testimonythat,onthe APPS, no packages are touched by the Mail Handlers during theinductionprocess. “Nothing inducted through the shoe sorterwhich isabout85,90percentofthemailistouchedbyanyone. Onlytherejectsordoublefeedsthatarenotabletobesingulatedandinductedtothesortergoes to the semiautomatic induct.” [Emphasis supplied.] Mr. ProkitytestiUied-withrespecttowhetheranyothermachineshavetheunique

50

function in which the machine itself is doing the singulation and theorientationofthemailbeforeitisdistributed-“ThisSSIUisonlyontheAPPSandontheretroUittedPSMs.”

The Arbitrator Uinds that, based on the above emphasizedtestimony of Mr. Prokity, although Mail Handlers on the APPS areassignedto“singulate”and“face”parcels,theyperformthesetasksonlyfor the10to15percentof themailwhichare“rejectsordouble feedsthat are not able to be singulated and inducted to the sorter [which]goes to thesemiautomatic induct.” TheArbitrator Uinds that theUSPSreasonably distinguished the assignment to the Mail Handlers of thatlimited“singulating”and“facing”workaspartoftheassignmentofMailHandlersas thePrimaryCraft toperformallof theworkon theAPPS.There is no dispute that, most of which work on the APPS involvesdumping the mail onto the conveyors and sweeping it after the mailautomaticallyhasbeeninductedandsortedbythemachineitself. TheArbitratorUindsthattheUSPSreasonablydeterminedthat,bycontrast,ontheSPSS,the“singulating”and“facing”workawardedtotheClerks,asthePrimaryCraft,involveshandlingeveryparceltoproperlyplaceitonthebeltsothatthatpiececanbeinductedbythemachine.

The Arbitrator notes that Mr. Fletcher testiUied for the NPMHU,with respect to the APBS, that that machine initially had four keyingstations. AccordingtoMr.Fletcher: “Theyreducedthekeyingstationstonormallyone,andtheotherstations,alltheydidwasinduct. Itreadautomatically the barcode or the address.” Mr. Fletcher testiUied that,when the job determination by the USPS issued, the NPMHU Uiled agrievance “. . . because theyhad taken thekeying functionawayandwenttofacingandinductionthatitwasmoreakintomailhandlingcraftwork.” [Emphasis supplied.] Mr. Fletcher described the sweepingfunctionontheAPBSasthesameashedescribedontheSPBS.

TheArbitratornotesnext thatMr.Suslak testiUied for theAPWU,regarding theAPBS that “. . . in2011 they took that SPBSand theyactuallyretroUittediy[sic,it]intoanAPBS.Andliterallyalltheydidwasputscanningunitson. Itwasthesamesetup,andnowyoudidn’tevenhavetokeyonitforthemostpart.Thatwastheintentoftheservicewastodoawaywiththekeyingandjusthaveaninductionthere,anditwouldbescannedautomatically. Anditwasthesamemachine. ItwasretroUitthatway.Andtheyhad--usuallytheyleftmaybeonekeyedformis-septs

51

and things that couldn’t be keyed.” Mr. Suslak testiUied that, after theAPBSwasretroUittedastheSPBS,“Well,theclerktakestheparcel.Itgetsinducted by the mail handlers through the loading system that wasdescribedearlier. Itcomesdownaslide. Theypullthemailoutandtheykind of face it, singular it right on the belt, and it goes on its way,assumingtheyarenotkeying. Eightyto90percentof themail that I’mfamiliarwithisusuallyjustinducted.Theyarenotusingkeyers....Gottoplaceitsothescannerwouldbeabletoidentifyit....Well,Iimagineitwouldbefacedup.Thescannerisrightontop.”[Emphasissupplied.]

TheArbitratornotes thatMr.Prokity testiUied, for theUSPS, thatAPBS was modiUied for scanning: “When it became the automatedpackageandbundlesorter,anoverheadcamerawasadded,likewehaveontheSPSS,andtheinductionchangedtobeingabletojustmanuallyfaceand inductororientand inductunder theOCR. And then theOCRBCRreadercamerawouldaddtothesort.” [Emphasissupplied.]Mr.ProkitytestiUiedthattheAPBShadkeyingstations:“Infact,there’sadirectfeedto this keying station, but the keying stations on some of the stationswereavailable.” Mr.ProkittytestiUiedthattheAPBS“wasalsomodiUiedwith the loose mail system so that they could dump, the mail pieceswouldcomeuptheseinclineconveyorsandthenautomaticallygodownto the induction stations. What this allowed, instead of having anindividual person dumping on each induction station, it allowed us tocentralize thedumping functionhere andmoveup.” According toMr.Prokity, theoriginalAPBShadan individualpersononeach station liketheSPSSnow. ThedumpingfunctionremainedwiththeMailHandlers,the induction function remained with the Clerks and the sweepingincluded Clerks, for rotational purposes, along with the Mail Handlers.TheArbitratoragreeswiththepositionoftheUSPStotheeffectthattheworkof“singulating”/“facing”theparcelscannotpossiblybeconsideredmailhandlerwork”becausetheemployeeswhoworkontheplatformoftheSPSS“playnorole,whatsoever, inmoving,dumping,orsweepingthemail.”

The Arbitrator recognizes, with regard to two of the previousdisputes involving theUSPS’sdeterminationofCraft jobson theAPPS,Uiled by the APWU, and that on the APBS, Uiled by the NPMHU, eachUnion agreed during the negotiations for the revision of the RI-399Dispute Resolution Procedures in June 2018, to withdraw theirrespective claims without prejudice. Thus, neither of the CraftdeterminationsmadeonthesetwomachinesbytheUSPS,theAPPSand

52

theAPBS, canbe regardeddirectlyhereinasestablishedprecedentonthesamebasisasanundisputed/agreed-uponCraftdeterminationoraCraft determination resolved through Arbitration. Nevertheless, theArbitrator Uinds, in these circumstances, that theUSPS, in reaching itsdeterminationtoawardthe“singulating”/“facing”workontheSPSS tothe Clerk Craft,was acting in amannerwhichwas consistentwith itsdetermination of the award of jobs on these two machines, with theassignmentofsuchduties to theMailHandlerson theAPPS in lightofthelimitedamountofsuchworktobeperformedandtotheClerksontheAPBSinlightofthemoresigniUicantamountofsuchworkrequired.To that extent, the Arbitrator Uinds that the USPS, in awarding the“singulating”/“facing” work on the SPSS to the Clerks as the PrimaryCraft,basedinpartontheassignmentofsuchworktotheClerksontheAPBS,wasnotactinginamannerwhichwasarbitraryorinabuseofitsdiscretion.

RI-399PrinciplesandPriorJurisdictionalDisputeArbitrationAwards

TheArbitrator, intwopreviousJurisdictionalDisputeArbitrationOpinions and Awards (cited and discussed discussed brieUly below),discussed in detail the applicable considerations regarding the RI-399Principles and previous relevant Jurisdictional Dispute ArbitrationAwards, including the Opinion and Award by Arbitrators Zumas andEischen(citedanddiscussedbrieUlybelow),regardingthe“distributionfunction” for Primary Craft determination purposes. The Arbitratorhereby incorporates by reference the extensive discussion of thesemattersconcerningthe“distributionfunction”setforthintheSharnoffOpinionscitedbelow.Thefollowingsummarizesthesediscussions.

RI-399Guidelines

The USPS issued Regional InstructionNo. 399 -Mail ProcessingWork Assignment Guidelines [RI - 399 herein] on February 16, 1979.TheseGuidelinesperiodicallyhavebeenupdated. As relevant,RI-399sets forth: “primary craft designations relative to the performance ofspeciUic mail processing work functions.” The Arbitrator notes thatRI-399 Implementation Criteria, at II.A, EfUicient and EffectiveOperation, states, in relevant part: All actions taken relative to

53

implementationoftheseguidelinesmustbeconsistentwithanefUicientandeffectiveoperation.” TheArbitrator, for reasonsdiscussedherein,UindsthattheawardbytheUSPStotheClerks,asthePrimaryCraft,ofthe work of “singulating”/“facing” parcels as part of the inductionprocessontheSPSSmachinemeetsImplementationCriteria,II.A.

The Arbitrator notes that the RI-399 Guidelines also provide, atSection II.C, Implementation Criteria, that “[w]here the functions ofobtainingemptyequipment,obtainingunprocessedmail,loadingledgesand sweeping are an integral part of the distribution function andcannotbeefUicientlyseparated,theentireoperationwillbeassignedtotheprimarycraftperformingthedistributionactivity.”TheUSPSdidnotdeterminethatImplementationCriteria,II.C,isapplicableorcontrollingto the award by the USPS of the sweeping work to the Mail HandlerCraft, as the Primary Craft, with the assignment of sweeping, forrotationalpurposesonly, to thoseClerksperforming the “singulating”/“facing”workontheSPSS. Forreasonsdiscussedbelow,theArbitratorUinds that the USPS Craft determination regarding the sweepingworkmettheothercriteriaofRI-399andwasappropriate.

RI-399Operation105-MechanicalParcelSorter

TheArbitratornotes thatRI-399, atOperation105 -MechanicalParcelSorter,whichincludedthefollowingassignment:“4.Distributionof parcel post through the use of parcel sortingmachines.” All otherfunctions on the Mechanical Parcel Sorter were assigned to the MailHandlersasthePrimaryCraft,withanasterisknote: “InofUiceswherethe tasks of obtaining empty equipment, obtaining unprocessed mail,loading ledges, sweeping and containerizing is an integral part of thedistribution function, the entireoperation is a functionof theprimarycraftperformingthedistribution.”TheArbitratorisnotpersuadedthatthe USPS did not conclude,with regard to the award of duties on theSPSS, that all of the duties on the SPSS were “an integral part of thedistribution function”. The Arbitrator notes that Mr. Prokity, in histestimony, explained that the SPSS processes approximately equalamountsofUirst-classpackagesandprioritypackageswhich,asarguedbytheAPWU,meetsthedeUinition,intheRI-399MailProcessingWorkAssignment Guidelines, of “parcels,” as set forth in Postal ServicePublication32,GlossaryofPostTerms,“(1)Mailthatdoesnotmeetthe

54

mailprocessingcategoryofletter-sizemailorUlat-sizemail.Itisusuallyenclosedinamailingcontainersuchasacarton.(2)APackage....”

The Arbitrator agrees with the APWU that, although the maildistributedontheSPSSmachineconsistsof“packages,”asdoesthemailprocessed on the SPBS machines, and the machine in Operation 105distributes “parcel post,” rather than “parcels”/packages this is notdispositive regarding Operation 105 as a valid consideration forpurposesofawarding jobson theSPSSsince the “distribution”ofmailpackagesdoneontheSPBSmachineservesthesamepurpose-formailprocessing - as the distribution of mail packages on the SPSS.Operation 105was found to be a relevant consideration for the Craftdetermination for the SPBSmachine and the Arbitrator Uinds that theUSPS appropriately considered it for thepurposeof determiningCraftassignmentsontheSPSS.

The Arbitrator notes the APWU’s argument that, although theUSPS,based itsawardof thedistribution functionson theSPBS to theClerks on the relevance of Operation 105 -Mechanical Parcel Sorter,withoutreferencetoOperation050/055PriorityMailDistribution, thework assignments set forth in Operation 050/055 also support theaward of the distribution functions on the SPSS to the Clerks. TheArbitrator agrees insofar as Operation 050/055 Priority MailDistribution includes, 6. “Distribution of priority mail. Clerk”. TheArbitratornotes,withrespectto2.“*Culling,facingandcancelling.MailHandler.”, that this “facing” work, alongwith culling and cancelling, isset forthbetween1. *Transporting empty equipment. MailHandler”and3. *Openinganddumping. MailHandler”,4. *Transportingmail.MailHandler”and5.“*Loadingledges. MailHandlers.” Eachofthesedutiesprecedestheworkinitem6.“Distributionofprioritymail.”Andeachofthesedutiesissubjecttotheasterisknote:“InofUiceswherethetasks of obtaining empty equipment, obtaining unprocessed mail,loading ledges, sweeping and containerizing is an integral part of thedistribution function, the entireoperation is a functionof theprimarycraftperformingthedistribution.” The“facing”ofparcelsaccordingtotheAPWUhistoricallyhasbeenClerkworkontheearliestParcelSortingMachines and on the SPBS machines. The APWU points out that, inRI-399Clerks,BulkMailCenters,forPrimaryParcelSorting,Clerksareassigned“1.Facingandkeying”parcelsandforSecondaryParcelSortingClerksareassigned“1.Facingandkeying”parcels. TheAPWUassertsthattheworkclaimedinthisproceedingbytheNPMHUisthesameas

55

the work assigned by the USPS to Clerks on the APBS machines andnotes that the jurisdictional dispute over that assignment has beenwithdrawn.

TheArbitrator,with these considerations noted, agreeswith theAPWUthattheCraftdeterminationinOperation050/055isconsistentwith the USPS’s Craft determination to the Clerks of the distributionfunctionsontheSPSS.TheArbitratornotesthattheUSPSdidnotclaimto have relied on Operation 050/055, and the Arbitrator is notpersuaded that the USPS’s failure to consider the applicability ofOperation 050/055 to the determination of the appropriate craft toaward the “singulating”/“facing” work as elements of the distributionfunction of the SPSS therefore was arbitrary, unreasonable orconstitutedanabuseof itsdiscretion toevaluate relevant factors. Forthesereasons,theArbitratordoesnotUinditappropriatetorelyonthearguableapplicabilityof thisoperationwithregard to theproprietyofthe USPS’s award of the disputed “singulating”/“facing” work to theClerks. The Arbitrator, as discussed below, Uinds that essentially thesame considerations are applicable to whether the USPS actedarbitrarily insofar as it did not consider the applicability of Operation200concerningthedistributionofparcelpost.

TheArbitratoralsonotes,andagreeswith,theAPWU’sargumenttotheeffectthatdistributionofmail,asopposedtothesortationofmailto fewerpoints, alwayshasbeen assigned toClerks and that the SPSSmachinesdistributesmallparcelsandpriorityparcelstomorethan190receptacles, each of which constitutes a different destination. TheAPWU notes that Operation 100 distinguishes between manualdistribution of parcel post without scheme knowledge, which isassignedtoMailHandlers,andmanualdistributionofparcelpostwithschemeknowledge,whichisassignedtoClerks. TheAPWUarguesthatthe same principle is relevant to Operation 200, involving incomingparcel post. The APWU argues that incoming distribution ordinarilyrequiresmorenumerousseparations,usuallyreferredtoasdistribution,as opposed to simple sortation. Themanual distribution of incomingparcels is assigned, pursuant toOperation 200, to Clerks. TheAPWUarguesthatthemachinedistributionofsmallparcelsontheSPSStoover190receptaclesisanalogoustoschemedistribution,whichisassignedinOperation200toClerks,suchthatthedistributionfunctionontheSPSSalsoshouldbeawardedtotheClerks.

56

TheArbitratoragreeswiththeAPWUthattheworkof“facing”theparcelson theSPSS,which itnotes is assignedexclusively toClerks inBulkMailingCenters including: “PrimaryParcelSorting1.Facingandkeying”;and“SecondaryParcelSorting1.Facingandkeying.”ThereisnoevidencepresentedthatMailHandlershavebeenassignedtofacepackages on parcel sortingmachines. The APWU points out thatMr.SuslaktestiUied,bycontrast,withrespecttofacingmailontheOperation105ParcelSortingMachine,thatoneClerkwouldfacethemailandthekeyernexttothatClerkwouldputakeycodeontheparcel. TheAPWUpointsoutthattherewasonlyoneClerkontheSPBSmachinewhofacedandsingulatedtheparcelsoitcouldbekeyed. Mr.Suslakdescribedtheevolution of the facing work on the SPBS machines, to the APBSmachines,andthentotheSPSSmachines.Mr.SuslaktestiUiedthat,afterthe retroUit of the SPBS to the APBS machines, the Clerk still had tosingular, faceand induct themailso that theaddresscouldbereadbythemachine. TheArbitratorUindsthatthisisessentiallytheworkthatthe employee on the platform on the SPSS machine is required toperform.

TheArbitrator isnotpersuadedthattheUSPSerredinassigningthe“singulating”/“facing”workontheSPSStotheClerks,becausethereareoperationssetforthintheRI-399Guidelinesinwhichfacingworkisassigned toMail Handlers, including: Operation 010OriginatingMailPreparation,whichoperationdoesnotincludedistributionorsortation;Operation050/055;Operation110-129;andOperation180-189. The Arbitrator notes that the facing function assigned to the MailHandlersintheseoperationshasanasteriskwhichindicatesthatwherethe allied duties are “an integral function of the distribution function,the entire operation is a function of the primary craft performing thedistribution.”TheArbitratornotesthatClerkemployeesareassignedtothedistributionfunctionineachofthosethreeoperations.

UnitedStatesPostalServiceandNationalPostOfUiceMailHandlersandAmericanPostalWorkersUnion,CaseNo.HIM-NA-C14,datedJuly14,1986,ArbitratorNicholasZumas

ArbitratorNicholasZumas,inhisOpinion,inUnitedStatesPostalService and National Post OfUice Mail Handlers and American Postal

57

WorkersUnion,CaseNo.HIM-NA-C14,datedJuly14,1986,asrelevant,noted, at page35, that theRI-399GuidelinesdesignatedClerks as thePrimary Craft for all distribution functions and Mail Handlers as thePrimaryCraft forbulkmail handling, preparationandpre-distributionfunctions. Arbitrator Zumas noted, at page 36, also that the term“distribution”isdeUinedinpostalHandbooksas“Mailsortedbyaddressintomachinebins,pigeonhole cases, trays, sacksorpouches togrouppieceswithacommondestinationfortransportationtothePostOfUiceofaddress.”ThedisputebeforeArbitratorZumasinvolvedtheclaimbythe NPMHU that the newly created position of Mail Processor usingOCR/BCStechnologyshouldbeassignedtotheMailHandlerCraft. TheNPMHU,inthecasebeforeArbitratorZumasarguedthatinlightoftheuseofOCRtechnology,themachines,ratherthanemployees,performedthe actual distribution work that previously had been performed byClerks. Arbitrator Zumas applied the principles of Article 1.5 of theNational Agreement and RI-399 noted that RI 399 applies to workfunctions and not to job titles or job descriptions. TheAPWUarguesthattheintroductionoftheOCR/BCStechnologydidnotchangethefactthat machine distribution of mail is a Clerk function. The ArbitratorUinds that the holding in the Zumas Award supports the Arbitrator’sUinding herein that the USPS’s determination to assign the work of“singulating”/“facing”andplacingtheparcelontheinductionbeltoftheSPSS was reasonable and appropriately based on relevantconsiderations.

UnitedStatesPostal.ServiceandAmericanPostalWorkersUnionandNationalPostalMailHandlersUnion,SpreadingtheMailtoCarrierCase,CaseNo.H7C-NA-C32,DatedApril14,1998,ArbitratorDanaEischen The Arbitrator notes that this Opinion and Award by ArbitratorEischeninvolvedanissueconcerningtheproperCraftdeterminationfor“SpreadingtheMailtoCarrierCases.”ArbitratorEischen’sOrderstates,inrelevantpart:“ThePostalServiceproperlyassignedthemailhandlercraft as the primary craft to spreadmail to letter carrier cases whensuchmail has been previously identiUied andmarked by carrier routenumbers.” ArbitratorEischenconcludedthatthedecisionbytheUSPSfullywasconsistentwithRI-399perse,andthat,ifitwerenecessarytogo beyond the conUines of RI-399 to resolve a jurisdictional dispute

58

underRI-399,“the logicandthemutual intentofthePartiessupportaconclusion that the appropriate principal jurisdictional standards toconsiderwouldbethesix(6)criteriaagreeduponbythePartiesinthe1975 MOY establishing the Committee on Jurisdiction.” ArbitratorEischen noted that the six criteria continued to be part of the CBA ofeach of theseUnions. TheArbitrator notes that, in the instant SPSScase, the six criteria were not discussed speciUically by the USPS inexplaining its determination regarding the “singulating”/“facing”workperformedaspartoftheinductionprocessontheSPSSmachine.

UnitedStatesPostalServiceandNationalPostalMailHandlersUnion,AFL-CIOandAmericanPostalWorkersUnion,AFL-CIO,CaseNo.Q90M-4Q-J94021635,datedApril22,2005,ArbitratorJosephM.Sharnoff-LetterMailLabelingMachine(LMLM)

The Arbitrator notes that, in the Letter Mail Labeling Machinecase,thisArbitratorcitedandagreedwiththefollowingstatementmadebyArbitratorEischenintheabove-citedOpinionandAwardinthe:

[Arbitrator Eischen stated that] the ‘general parameters fordescribing the types of Postal Serviceworkperformedby clerksandthetypesofPostalworkperformedbymailhandlersarewellestablished.’Hestatedthat‘[]transportingthemail(movementofmailfromPointAtoPointB”)isafunctionprimarilyassignedtoandperformedbythemailhandlercraft.’ Hefurtherstated,“Nordoesanything in the record call intoquestion the countervailingtruism that the functional duties and responsibilities of clerksprimarilyaredescribedintermsofperformingdifferenttypesofdistribution.

***

UnitedStatesPostalServiceandNationalPostalMailHandlersUnion,AFL-CIOandAmericanPostalWorkersUnion,AFL-CIO,CasesNos.K87C-1K-07702242andH7C-NA-C69,datedSeptember7,2009,ArbitratorJosephM.Sharnoff-SmallParcelandBundleSorter(SPBS)

59

TheArbitratornotesthattheOpinionandAwardintheSPBScasethattheUSPS,amongotherawards,properlyassignedthedutiesof“5.Distribution of IPPs, newspapers, rolls, letter or Ulat bundles or slugs”and“6.Insertinglabels.”toClerks,asthePrimaryCraft. TheArbitratornoted therein the relianceby theUSPSon theRI-399Operation105 -MechanizedParcelSorter,“4.Distributionofparcelpostthroughtheuseof parcel sorting machines.”, to Clerks, as the Primary Craft. Theassignment of the above distribution-type work to the Clerks on theSPBS was made in conjunction with the assignment to the ClerksperformingthosedutiesoftheadditionaldutieslistedasNo.”7.Pullingcontainers.” and No. “8. Containerizing and transporting.”, whichwereassignedtotheClerksforrotationalpurposesonly. TheArbitratoralsonoted the relianceonRI-399Operation080-087,Multi-PositionLetterSortingMachine, “Machine distribution of all classes of letters.”,whichhad a note, amended in June 1979, “Allied labor required is normallyperformed by clerks because of the rotation system employed.” Alsorelied onwas RI-399 O88-089, Optical Character Reader Distribution,“OCRmachinedistributionofallclassesoflettermail.”,withtherevisednote appended toOperation080-087. Distinguished thereinonwere:Flat Sorting Machine (FSM 775) Guidelines, USPS Handbook PO-406,February 1984 and Flat Sorting Machine (FSM 881) Guidelines USPSHandbook PO-406, March 1993, on the grounds that the keying andsweeping/ledge loading in those operationswere farmore integratedthanthoseat issueontheSPBS. TheArbitratoralsodiscussedthereinthat the six factorsare tobe reviewed todetermine theproprietyofaCraftdeterminationonlytotheextentthatitisnecessarytogobeyondthe conUines of RI-399, as stated by Arbitrator Eischen [see abovediscussion].

TheArbitrator Uinds that the relianceby theUSPSon theabove-citedawardintheSPBScasewasappropriateregardingtheawardofthe“singulating”/“facing” work to the Clerks, as the Primary Craft in theinstantSPSScase.

TheDisputeConcerningTheSweepingFunction

TheArbitratorconcludesthat thedeterminationbytheUSPStoassignsomeofthesweepingdutiesontheSPSStotheClerkswhowereperforming

60

the “singulating”/“facing” work on the SPAA, for rotational purposesreasonably was based on appropriate considerations and previous workassignments. The Arbitrator is not persuaded that the APWU has met itsburdenofdemonstratingthattheUSPSactedimproperly,arbitrarilyorabusedits discretion insofar as it did not assign to the Clerks all of the sweepingduties on the SPSS. There is no dispute that sweepingwork is part of theduties recognized by the Parties as an appropriate function assigned to theMailHandlersasthePrimaryCraft. TheArbitratornotesthattheissueoftheproper amount of the assignment of sweepingwork to Clerks for rotationalpurposesissubjecttoconsiderations,includingtheproperlevelofstafUingontheSPSSandergonomicsinvolvedintheClerkworkontheplatforms,whichmattersproperlyarenotraisedorresolvedinthisproceedingwhichislimitedtotheresolutionofjurisdictionaldisputes. Nothingstatedhereinisintendedtoaddressortoresolvesuchothernon-jurisdictionalissues.

CONCLUSION

TheArbitrator,forthereasonssetforthintheaboveOpinion,deniesthefollowing claims: the claim by the National Postal Mail Handlers Union[NPMHU], thatthe issuancebytheUnitedStatesPostalService,onAugust7,2015, of the revised Craft Determination for the Small Parcel Sorter System[SPSS],wasimproper,insofarastheUSPSchangeditsJune1,2015,awardofthe “singulating”/“facing” work on the platform to Mail Handler Craftemployees, by awarding suchwork to the Clerk Craft employees, and by itsrelatedassignmenttothoseClerksofsomeofthe“sweeping”work(removingfullcontainersfromtheSPSSandreplacingthemwithemptycontainers)forrotationalpurposesonly, insofarassuchassignmentswereinconsistentwithRI-399 Craft determination principles and with certain previously decidedArbitrationOpinionsandAwards; theclaimbytheAmericanPostalWorkersUnion[APWU]thattheUSPS,initsreviseddeterminationof August7,2015,improperlyawarded“sweeping”worktoMailHandlerCraftemployees,astheprimaryCraft,withtheawardofsomeofthe“sweeping”work,forrotationalpurposesonly,tothoseClerkCraftemployeeswhowereassignedtoperformthe work of “singulating”/“facing” parcels, rather than assigning all of the“sweeping”worktoClerkCraftemployees.

61

AWARD

TheArbitrator, for thereasonsset forth in theaboveOpinion,deniesthefollowingclaims:theclaimbytheNational Postal Mail Handlers Union [NPMHU], thatthe issuance by the United States Postal Service, onAugust7,2015,oftherevisedCraftDeterminationfortheSmallParcelSorterSystem[SPSS],was improper,insofarastheUSPSchangeditsJune1,2015,awardofthe “singulating”/“facing” work on the platform toMailHandlerCraftemployees,byawardingsuchworkto the Clerk Craft employees, and by its relatedassignmenttothoseClerksofsomeofthe“sweeping”work (removing full containers from the SPSS andreplacingthemwithemptycontainers) forrotationalpurposes only, insofar as such assignments wereinconsistent with RI-399 Craft determinationprinciples and with certain previously decidedArbitration Opinions and Awards; the claim by theAmerican Postal Workers Union [APWU] that theUSPS,initsreviseddeterminationof August7,2015,improperlyawarded“sweeping”worktoMailHandlerCraftemployees,astheprimaryCraft,withtheawardof some of the “sweeping” work, for rotationalpurposes only, to those Clerk Craft employees whowere assigned to perform thework of “singulating”/“facing” parcels, rather than assigning all of the“sweeping”worktoClerkCraftemployees.

________________________________________ JosephM.Sharnoff,Arbitrator NationalJurisdictionalDisputes

Dated: November30,2020 Oakton,Virginia