I 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:
- definition of the class or Individuals eligible to receive a distribution of the proceeds of a December 11, 2014 arbitration award; and
- 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.