APWU to answer labor charges of $1 million being withheld from AOI Settlement

NLRB_logo_2I am posting this for informational purposes. All members have the right to know when a charge is placed against our Union. With the promise of transparency as part of its plank from the previous national officer elections, one would think the current administration would have informed us of this information – guilty or not.  A Hearing on NLRB cases 05-CB-150339 & 05-CB-150853 is scheduled and information will be updated as available.

The Charges being:

During the last six months, the above-named labor organization, by Its officers, agents, and representatives restrained and coerced the employees of the United States Postal Service in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and/or breached its duty of fair representation by processing a grievance in an arbitrary. discriminatory, and/or bad faith manner by its:

  1. definition of the class or Individuals eligible to receive a distribution of the proceeds of a December 11, 2014 arbitration award; and
  2. retaining for its self/failing to disburse one million dollars of that December 11, 2014 arbitration award

As a quick background and summary, these Labor charges stem from the 2010 Award on Associate office infrastructure subcontracting (AOI) USPS #Q94T-4Q-C 97031616 and subsequent remedy award on that issue. The work subcontracted in question was involving cabling and AOI servers.

The labor charges are related to the one million dollars of that award being withheld for lost dues, implementation of the award, and to prepare for prospective litigation protecting the bargaining unit from further contracting out in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Which at its face is typical of a national award of this size. On the other hand, Counsel for the General Counsel has taken a position in this particular issue there is strong argument that the distribution and handling of this remedy may have been improper and therefore should be heard in front of an Administrative Judge for adjudication.

It’s worth noting, the NLRB documents argue that the Arbitrator did retain jurisdiction and that the union, specifically Maintenance Craft Director Steven Raymer interpreted who the injured parties of the bargaining unit were without opinion from the Arbitrator.


Related APWU Documents:

6 thoughts on “APWU to answer labor charges of $1 million being withheld from AOI Settlement

  1. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    Terre Haute Area Local #618
    Past or current office held, if any
    steward, past local editor and craft director

    I had a nice conversation with one of the gentlemen who filed the charges against the APWU for keeping over $1,000,000 from a grievance settlement. What I have learned is the process is still ongoing. It will be moving to a settlement judge with the NLRB in early November.

  2. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    Terre Haute Area Local
    Past or current office held, if any
    2016 candidate for APWU National President

    One thought that comes to mind is the APWU law firm is very expensive. These are Washington, D.C. attorneys specializing in labor law. Would it have been more cost effective to have settled with those who filed with the NLRB? Below are the line item charges by Murphy Anderson the APWU’s lawyers. They are taken from last years LM-2. Now I am sure there are many cases Murphy Anderson handled in 2015. Part of these charges certainly had to be in conjunction with reaching a new national agreement as well. Still, it makes one think. Just asking why? Nothing more.

    MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
    – Total of All Transactions with this Payee/Payer for This Schedule $525,586
    – Total of All Transactions with this Payee/Payer for This Schedule $656.983
    – Total of All Transactions with this Payee/Payer for This Schedule $105,118
    Total: $1,287,687

    Jerry Stidman for APWU National President

  3. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    APWU - Philadelphia, PA Area Local #89
    Past or current office held, if any
    Retired Maintenance Craft Electronics Technician / Retiree-Activist Member

    Charlie Cash,

    Your comment is confusing. I have not seen any posts on Facebook by a “Gary”. Perhaps that was in a private group that I and many others are not privy to? The “Gary” that you refer to from the Facebook post – Is that Gary Kloepfer? Also, I, Randy Zelznick, made the initial post about the NLRB charges on https://www.21cpw.com, NOT “Gary”. Please direct your comments accordingly and please identify and clarify what you read on Facebook and by whom.

    Thanks!

  4. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    Salt Lake City Area Local 6
    Past or current office held, if any
    President and Electronics Technician

    Gary,

    Are you making the charge that he is using this money to finance his campaign? As you stated in your Facebook Post? Do you have proof of this or is it an unfounded allegation to simply disparage? Please give me the proof or this alleged illegal activity. As I look at the charge the complainant did not like the class of people identified for payment nor the $1M held back. So if this is settled and the class is expanded will the 7149 people paid be required to pay money back? You stated in your 21CPW post the following, “The labor charges are related to the one million dollars of that award being withheld for lost dues, implementation of the award, and to prepare for prospective litigation protecting the bargaining unit from further contracting out in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Which at its face is typical of a national award of this size.” So are you upset by the withholding or are you just slinging mud? Were you as an Asst MCD in DC ever part of a settlement that withheld money–if so why do you have problems with it now? So if the AJ for the NLRB rules the $1M to be paid to the class as identified each person will get an additional $139.88. That is nothing in the scheme of things and would be eaten up in taxes. So again–what is your real complaint? You were not required to move to Legislative Director in 2013 and you lost the election. Is this sour grapes?

    In 2013 when the current administration ran on full transparency and telling us everything if anyone actually thought that was going to happen you were mistaken. No one knows what will happen with this charge yet. But the statements being made are unfair and border line libelous. I would hope you have proof of illegal activity before you actually write it down.

  5. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    Terre Haute Area Local #618
    Past or current office held, if any
    2016 candidate for APWU National President

    “With the promise of transparency as part of its plank from the previous national officer elections, one would think the current administration would have informed us of this information – guilty or not.”
    I agree with this statement but in this case with one caveat. This case directly involves President Mark Dimondstein. He is responsible for transparency and the decision-making process. It is a “buck stops here” position. Steve Raymer is directly named. I would think coming out of the Eastern Region Mike Gallagher may have some knowledge.

    We can’t paint with a wide stroke brush or we potentially harm the innocent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *