3 thoughts on “Is there language stipulating only Maintenance clears jams on FSS?

  1. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    NPMHU L-318
    Office held, if any
    Branch President
    So as of this year, 2017, who is responsible for clearing the “jams” in the ITC area of the Fss machines? Is there any current documentation on who is responsible for clearing jams on the Fss?

  2. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    Ms. Mendez posted two pages from two completely different USPS service talks. The first page was from an April 2011 talk which stated that: “Maintenance personnel will be responsible for clearing ALL ITC Verticalizer and Stacker/Loader Area jams.” This service talk included the installation of a plastic chain on the ITC which was used as a physical dividing line between maintenance/ITC mailhandler responsibilities.

    However, the second page of her post is the most recent USPS service talk, from about mid-2012. It states that: “…operators will now resume clearing ALL ITC verticalizer and stacker/loader area jams.”

    Here are the particulars, at least from our local management’s viewpoint: “

    You’ll notice several blank lines prior to this. That’s pretty much the essence of what management says about ITC responsibilities. They look the other way, and pretend that everything will all just work itself out [They get paid six figures for this?]. However, the mailhandlers we get to staff the ITCs are fill-ins (we’re supposed to be done running the FSSes & SAMPs by the time my shift begins) with no proper training. Management’s idea of training is to show mailhandlers how to pull full and install empty CASTRs into the ITCs, a grand total of two to three minutes’ worth of their illustrious six-figure salaries.

    Between (mis)management’s chronic FSS understaffing and unwillingness to train FSS personnel, is it any wonder the FSSes & SAMPs mangle magazines and catalogs like the gorilla in the old Samsonite luggage commercials?

  3. Union and NAME of Local/Branch
    NY Metro
    Office held, if any
    Shop Steward
    There was a settlement reached at Step 4 in 2012 to keep the operators out of the DBCS and DIOSS machines where there aren’t any locks on the doors. The DIOSS have handles that anyone can open without a key. This was deemed unsafe. I think the same reasoning should apply here. How can non-trained employees walk around a machine where only TRAINED Maintenance employees are allowed. You should submit Safety forms on a regular basis or call OSHA.

    Settlement Reached on DBCS Door Change/Work Assignment Dispute
    The Maintenance Division reached agreement June 8, 2012 with the Postal Service on the dispute in case Q00T-4Q-C 07011178.

    That dispute challenged the Service’s May 22, 2006 issuance of Maintenance Work Order (MWO) 014-06 titled DBCS-EC Stacker Left-Hand Panel Latch Replacement. The purpose of the MWO was to provide for the replacement of the existing lock and latch on the rear panel doors of the DBCS-EC with a “Dish Handle” latch. The dispute came about because the MWO stated, “The replacement Latch, Dish Handle enables the Mail Processor/Operator to open the DBCS-EC machine stacker panel doors.” The MWO states the support for such a modification was Engineering Change Order Number EC7178.

    The APWU position in this case is that MWO 014-06 was never sent to the APWU as required by Article 19. Instead, the APWU received reports from the field of this MWO and its purpose. We contended the real purpose of the MWO was to direct employees of other bargaining units, the “Mail Processor/Operator”, to perform work being done by Maintenance Craft employees. Our position included that this work involved access to the interior of the machine through the rear panel doors for the clearing of jams. Live circuitry and energized components are present when the DBCS-EC is accessed through the rear panel doors. This presents significant safety and health issues, including lockout-tagout procedures, and is contrary to other MMOs on safety (e.g. – MMO 088-00, Safety Procedures for Clearing Jams in the Delivery Barcode Sorters and DIOSS Machines).

    The Step 4 settlement provides that the issue is moot at the headquarters level stating that, “This alleged directive is no longer in effect”. Any local grievance held pending the outcome of this dispute is remanded to the grievance-arbitration procedure for resolution including regional level arbitration if necessary.

    Please contact your Maintenance NBA or Maintenance Division headquarter officers, Steve Raymer; Gary Kloepfer; Greg See or Idowu Balogun, for any questions regarding this settlement.
    Steven G. Raymer
    Director, Maintenance Division

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *