Consultative Meeting

US Postal Service Headquarters

NAPS/USPS

11/12/2008 @ 9:00 a.m.


For NAPS:


Ted Keating, National President

Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President

Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer

Tim Ford, Board Chairman


For USPS:


William T. Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration

Lee Ann Olohan, Labor Relations Specialist


Bill Jones formally introduced Lee Ann Olohan to the NAPS representatives as the new Labor Relations Specialist assigned to Labor Relations, Policy Administration. Lee previously held a position in Retail at USPS Headquarters.


Item 1:


NAPS is concerned that our organization is not receiving information that we need to inform our members of changes in their work that affects them. There has been a significant drop in the amount of information that is available from the Postal Service at a time when there are changes being implemented that we should be aware of.


What steps will the Postal Service take to provide NAPS, at a minimum, with our Consultative rights?


USPS Response:


At the present time, there are plans underway to reduce the complement at the Area and District level by 15% in support positions. While this is being processed aggressively, there is still not a definite time-frame for the reductions.


Two USPS Area Vice Presidents (Sylvester Black, Western and Megan Brennan, Eastern) are developing a comprehensive methodology so that reductions will be coordinated between Area and District operations.


Once their review and recommendations are completed, the plan will have to be approved at USPS Headquarters. The Postal Service pointed out that the past reductions have been implemented very carefully and as a result that 98% of all the impacted employees were placed in positions. The remaining 2% either opted to take VERA’s or did not avail themselves of reassignment opportunities and left the USPS. There have been no guidelines from USPS HQ on how the reductions should be focused.


With respect to providing NAPS with information relative to changes that impact its’ members, USPS HQ has reinforced the requirement that Bill Jones’ office be involved in directly getting information on changes so that NAPS can get the information quickly once changes in EAS positions have been identified.

Additional question on Stamp Distribution Offices:


NAPS asked about additional information on the Stamp Distribution Office consolidations that were recently announced in a letter sent to the field. There were no specifics other than the announcement of the changes and our members in the field are concerned about the future of their positions in this network.


USPS Response:


The Postal Service responded that the details of the plans are still under review and that the Asset Integration Plan still has some way to go before the offices that will be consolidated will even be identified. Once there is more information available NAPS will be given a briefing.

Item 2


NAPS would like to discuss the current situation in the field in Function One where there are on-going plans to consolidate Tour Two operations. There does not seem to be any policy to follow on how to identify and place impacted EAS employees on Tour Two.


Since the operations on Tour One and Tour Three are not directly impacted, EAS position holders should not be impacted or displaced as a result of excessing EAS employees on Tour Two.


What plans does the USPS have in resolving the reassignment of impacted Tour Two supervisors? Why isn’t there any direction being given to this process by USPS HQ?


USPS Response:


John Mularski, Manager Staffing & Field Policy

Shirley Ford, Manager, Organizational Change, Workforce Planning


John and Shirley joined the meeting to provide information on our agenda item. The USPS intends to follow the provisions of ELM 354 in consolidating tour operations in Plants where it is identified that a consolidation would work.


John and Shirley responded that they believe that choice should be a large factor in the reassignments of impacted EAS in Plants.


NAPS reiterated that there will be no bumping of EAS who are getting moved to other tours. Positions that are still viable should remain intact and there should not be any Plant-wide bidding processes where the positions on Tours Three and One are not changed.


John and Shirley advised that there are no specific provisions in ELM 354 that guide these changes and that the matters should be dealt with locally. NAPS committed to would working locally to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected in this process.


Item 3:


NAPS is concerned with the lack of information it is being provided with respect to the changes that are occurring in the field. Recently the Postal service has informed individuals whom we represent that their positions are being abolished and no formal notification has been provided to NAPS. These positions include, but are not limited to: Elevator and Boiler Inspectors and others that we may have not yet heard about.


When will the Postal Service start to follow the requirements for notification of NAPS?


USPS Response:


As was stated in the response to Item #2, Bill Jones’s office has communicated with the other departments at USPS HQ in order to ensure that NAPS receives advance notification of changes that affect its’ members.


Item 4:


NAPS has provided unsolicited feedback to the Postal Service relative to steps that we believe should be taken in improving operational efficiency and reducing costs. The initial recommendations that we have made include:








The basic response that NAPS has received to date is that USPS HQ does not want to micro-manage the field. NAPS would like to again submit these ideas for consideration and also requests to be provided a venue to learn more about the plans of the USPS and to have an opportunity to participate in the discussions on future changes that we expect to see implemented in the field.





USPS Response:


USPS Headquarters appreciates the fact that NAPS is providing ideas to help the service respond to the financial challenges it faces.

The Mystery Shopper program is considered by PMG Potter to be a vital program to maintain and improve service and cannot be considered to be cut as a cost-saving measure.


(As a side note- NAPS stated that there are still problems in the field with discipline as a result of poor Mystery Shopper scores)


USPS responded that poor scores should not result in disciplinary action, but when reviews are conducted and it is found that work that is supposed to be accomplished to support Mystery Shopper results – including observations and training that is not being done, that there is a possibility that corrective action could be indicated as a result of failure to manage the process.


The use of contractors is currently under review in order to save money.


DPMG Donahoe has sent instructions to the field to use “common-sense” in efforts to deliver missent mail.


Item 5:


NAPS is requesting a meeting with Sales; issues will be provided upon scheduling of the meeting.


USPS Response:


The USPS needs information relative to issues so that a meeting could be scheduled.


NAPS responded that its agenda items would be sent to the USPS quickly so that a meeting could be scheduled.


Item 6:


We have received a request for feedback on the request in San Diego to convert their ASP process from traditional to universal. NAPS would like to discuss the Postal Service’s intentions to make this change.


USPS Response:


They are having problems attracting candidates to serve in EAS positions in San Diego and the District felt that the use of Universal ASP could address the need for supervisors.


NAPS Response:


The fact that an urban center like San Diego needs to utilize a process (Universal ASP) in lieu of Traditional ASP is not believable. NAPS asked when the last class of ASP’s was initiated (this information was unavailable).


NAPS added that an urban location like San Diego should not have commuting issues and training issues that are more prevalent in rural areas (the reason that Universal was first developed).


NAPS recommended that a new ASP class be opened and that requests for applicants be started immediately. NAPS does not believe that the change to Universal to San Diego should be approved.


Item 7:


Why is Sick Leave is in the drop down menu as a CORE requirement for the Mgr., Maintenance and is it shown for other functions also?  I understand it to be a unit goal but not a CORE requirement.


USPS Response:


Robin McLarney, USPS HQ PFP Programs


Robin responded that it was placed on Core goals this year to help increase the oversight of the use of Sick Leave. In all operational categories Sick Leave is one of over a dozen possible selections for Core goals.


Robin pointed out that people didn’t have to pick Sick Leave as a Core goal as there are many other choices that they can choose from.


NAPS replied that EAS were not allowed to pick their Core goals, just like they have been denied that right in the past. NAPS replied that we have objected to the inclusion of Sick Leave as a Core goal due to the inability of controlling the variety of Sick Leave mandates that are provided under FMLA law.


NAPS also stated that Sick Leave is a Unit goal and should remain only a Unit goal. NAPS demanded that Sick Leave be taken away from all drop-down selections.


Robin responded that she would bring our concerns to her department head and that we would be getting a response soon.


Pending Items

1. NAPS is requesting an extension to the RIF dates for all those EAS that are in a RIF avoidance position (i.e. ESS positions) until mid- May when all VERA (March 31, 2009) affected vacant positions are able to be filled. (10/22/08)

USPS Response:

Unable to honor NAPS’ request. All impacted employees have the opportunity to take advantage of either VERA or RIF avoidance so they can make a decision on their careers.

2. NAPS is requesting information on the criteria for determining levels of plants EAS 18 through EAS 25. (9/6/2008)





USPS Response:



This matter has been previously discussed with NAPS. Factors include Total Factor Productivity, Volume, Staffing, Transportation and a host of other factors. There is not a simple matrix that determines the outcome.



3. NAPS requests a copy of the staffing matrices for EAS support positions in administrative area, such as in Delivery Programs, In-Plant Support and Support operation AMS for each District. (9/6/2008)


USPS Response:


There are three basic categories that Plants fall into, from major Plants to smaller Plants. In each of these categories, staffing is based on the size of the overall operation with some latitude given to local Districts in determining the number of positions that will be in the staffing matrix.


The meeting concluded at 12:10 p.m.






1