Local Arbitration Decisions
Click on the case no. or regional no. for summaries of these arbitration's

Updated: October 1, 2004
Below are Local 332 Arbitration Decisions for class grievances which we felt were of the most concern to Mail Handlers in the SLC Post Office.  The entire file is available at the Local Union Hall.  Personal Arbitration's or Grievances of a personal nature will not be posted and may not be made available.  If you have any questions or comments, direct them to the Local 332 Office in care of Woody Hendrickson or Leonard Collins.  Thanks

Case No:  E94M-1E-C98094100
Issue:  Did the Postal Service violate Article 7.1B of the National Agreement by using casuals on tour 1 following the abolishment of five positions on November 8, 1997?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No. E94M-1E-C99014433
ISSUE:  The Parties agreed to the following Statement of the Issue:  Did the Employer violate the terms of the Parties' National Agreement, as outlined in Article 3, 5, 7.1B, in the employment of casuals in the Salt Lake City GMF on Tour III as a supplemental work force?  The Postal Service also raised the issue of timeliness both with regard to remedy and the Union sitting on its rights.
Case No. E94M-1E-D99071539
Issue: Did the Postal Service have just cause to remove the Grievent effective December 18, 1998?   If not, what is the Remedy?
Region #E98M1E-C 99244505
RELEVANT FACTS:  The union contends that on July 20, 1999 at 1530, three (3) mail handlers were preparing to unload a drop shipment trailer when management instructed them to allow the driver to unload the truck.  It is the union's position the mail handler craft shall assist contract drivers unloading drop shipments inside the trailer.
Case No: E98M-1E-C99276584 MT11499
ISSUE   Did the Postal Service violate Article 12.3.B3 of the National Agreement by reverting bids #8651624 and #86511619?  If so what is the remedy?
Case No:  E98M-1E-C01058070  LH11500
ISSUE:  Did the Postal Service violate the National Agreement Article 3 and Article 11.6C or applicable handbooks by placing the Grievant on LWOP because he refused to accept a higher-level assignment because of his illness?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No:  E98M-1E-C00217553  SJ8200
ISSUE  Did the Postal Service violate Articles 3, 5, and 12 when it reassigned employee XXXXX while on overtime without regard to employees' seniority?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C010129509  SJ11100
Issues   Did the Postal Service violate the National Agreement by assigning overtime to tour 1 employees on October 28 through November 9, 2000 in violation of Article 3, 7,1B, 8.4D, 8.5D, and 14?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C01083785  HW1601
Issue  Did the Postal Service violate Article 8.4D by assigning excessive and sustained overtime to tour 3 non-volunteers?  If so, what is the remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C01011744  MT12800
ISSUE  Did the Postal Service violate Article 32.2A and the pre arbitration settlement agreement of Case E90M-1E-C92047564 executed on December 1995? If so what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C01226850  HW15701
Issue  Is the grievance arbitrable? Did the Postal Service violate Articles 3, 12.3E3, 12.3E4, and LMOU.  Article 12.3 when it moved the grievant from his work assignment while non-bid employees were assigned to perform the Grievant's duties?  If so, what is the remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C01666136   HW15801
Issue  Did the Postal Service violate the provisions of the National Agreement, manuals, and handbooks when it failed to change the Grievant's attendance records from LWOP to UWOP?  If so, what is the remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C 01151155   DP0401
Issue    Did the Postal Service violate Article 8.5 of the National Agreement and/or Article 8.3 of the Local Memorandum of Understanding when it did not utilize Mail Handlers XXXXXXX and/or XXXXXXX for overtime on April 7, 2001?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-C01158073     BM5101
ISSUE  Did the Postal Service violate ELM 519.62 when it did not pay the Grievant for overtime hours associated with time spent receiving medical attention for an on-the-job injury?
Case No: E98M-1E-D 02198911   BL2402
ISSUE     The parties stipulated that the following are the issues to be decided in this case:
                    1.     Did (XXXXX) violate the terms of the Last Chance Agreement dated March 26, 2001?
                    2.     If so, did the USPS have just cause to issue (XXXXX) a 30 day suspension?
                    3.     If not, what shall the remedy be?
Case No: E98M-1E-C01196530     DP3701
ISSUE    Did the Postal Service violate the below referenced 1995 Stipulation and Agreement, prior arbitration awards, and Article 32.2 by ordering the west dock induction/dispatch (herein induction) mail handler assigned to VLU #2 (Vertical Lift Unit) to cease assisting the HCR (Highway Contract Route)/shuttle drivers load and unload their vehicles?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No: E98M-1E-02216495     BM4902
ISSUE    Are procedural issues surrounding a discussion under Article 16.2 and LMOU Article 10.3, and alleged supervisor's use of the discussion process as a means to harass employees arbitrable?
Case No: E98M-1E-C020070403      HW20701
ISSUE:  Did the Postal Service violate Article 7.1 B of the National Agreement by reverting two induction positions on December 15, 2001?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No. E00M-1E-D 03052867
ISSUE   Did the Postal Service have just cause to issue a Notice of Suspension for 14 days on December 4, 2002 for unacceptable conduct to the grievant?  If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No. E98M-1E-C 02117326  (MT3202)
ISSUE  Did the Postal Service violate the National Agreement, the 1995 Stipulation and Agreement, Postal Service Publication 804, Section 5.4 and a prior arbitration award by ordering mail handlers not to assist lumpers in the unloading of drop shipments (bedload shipment)?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No. E00M-1E-C03140540 (SJ1003)
ISSUE   Did the Postal Service violate Article 7.3 by not converting PTF Robert Greenwell (Grievant) to full time status?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Case No. E00M-1E-C 03166232 (HW4103)
ISSUE  Is the grievance arbitrable?  If not, what is the appropriate disposition?  Did the Postal Service violate Article 12.3  E4 on June 16, 2003, by reassigning Ray Moritz from his work assignment while working overtime on a non-scheduled day and replacing him with a casual employee?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?  Did the Postal Service engage in arbitrary and capricious conduct by reassigning Ray Moritz from his work assignment and replacing him with a casual employee?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
CASE NO.:            E98M-1E-D 02109008 LH0802
ISSUE   Did the United States Postal Service have just cause to issue the Notice of Removal dated February 28, 2002, to XXXXX ? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
CASE NO:     E94M-1E-C99015602
ISSUE    Union: Did the United states Postal Service violate Article 7.1B of the National Agreement in its continuous full-year-round use of Casual Employees on Tour 3 in the Auxiliary Services Facility in lieu of full or part time Mailhandlersw and not as a limited term supplemental work force?  If so, what shall be the remedy?
                Management:  Whether the grievance is arbitrable under the doctrines of Res Judicata and Laches, and, if so whether the Union proved a violation of Article 7.1B, if Management employed Casuals in lieu of full or part time regular employees?  If so, what shall the remedy be?

BACK TO MAIN PAGE