This arbitration case involved a grievance filed by the union alleging that management at the St. Charles, Missouri post office violated the collective bargaining agreement by requiring letter carriers who were not on the overtime desired list (ODL) to work overtime when ODL carriers were available. The union argued this violated the agreement's provisions regarding overtime opportunities for ODL carriers. Management contended their actions were necessary to meet the established window of operation for mail processing. The arbitrator was tasked with determining if a violation occurred and providing an appropriate remedy.

1. ‘
REGULAR ARBiTRATION
In the Matter of Arbitration )
)
between ) Grievant: Class Action
)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) Post Office: St. Charles, MO
)
and ) USPS Case No: JO6N-4J-C 11335738
)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) NALC Case No: JBO12
LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO ) DRT No: 05-21258 1
BEFORE: Barry E. Simon, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES:
For the U. S. Postal Service: Cassandra Walker
For the Union: John McLaughlin
Place ofHearing: Post Office, St. Charles, MO
Date of Hearing: March 6, 2012
AWARD: The Service violated the National Agreement by requiring non-ODL carriers to work
overtime when there were ODL carriers available. The Service is directed to com
pensate the ODL carriers for a total of 6.03 hours in a manner to be determined by
the Union.
Date of Award: May 7, 2012
GREAT LAKES AREA REGULAR PANEL
2 /.

2. Usps Case No. JO6N-4J-C I 1335738
DRTNo 05 212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 2
Background:
The facts in this case are, for the most part, undisputed. On Saturday, June 4, 201 1 it was
,
necessary to work letter carriers on overtime at the St. Charles Main Post Office. At total of 1 3 49
hours of overtime was worked that day by the five carriers who were regularly assigned to work on
that Saturday and were on the overtime desired list (ODL). Ofthis total, 238 hours were penalty
overtime. In addition, nine carriers who were working that day worked a total of 6.03 hours of
overtime, although they were not on the ODL. Two letter carriers who were on the ODL, but not
scheduled to work on Saturday, were not called for overtime work that day. Of the ODL carriers
who worked overtime, not all were utilized up to the maximum of ten or twelve hours.
It is also undisputed that management had established a Window of Operation (WOO) for
the Main Post Office at St. Charles that required all letter carriers to return from their street duties
by 6: 10 pm. This time requirement allowed for twenty minutes to prepare all collected mail to be
processed in time to make the last Dispatch ofValue, which was scheduled for 6:30 pm.
The Union filed the instant grievance on behalf of the letter carriers who were not on the
ODL, but were required to work overtime, as well as the carriers who were on the ODL and could
have worked the overtime hours, The grievance was denied by the Service and was then progressed
through the grievance procedure in accordance with the provisions ofthe National Agreement. The
parties being unable to reach resolution, the matter was submitted to arbitration before the under-
signed Arbitrator. In lieu ofclosing arguments, the parties submitted post-hearing briefs which were
received by the Arbitrator on April 9, 2012, at which time the record was closed.
Issue Presented:
Was there a violation of the National Agreement including, but not limited to, Article 8
regarding the use of non-ODL carriers for overtime work in lieu of available ODE carriers? If so,
what is the appropriate remedy?

3. tJS1S Case No. JO6N-4J-C 1 1335738
DR1 No 05 212581
Grievant Class Action
Page 3
Position ofthc tJnion:
The Union asserts the reason given by management for not fully utilizing the ODE carriers
was the Window ofOperation (WOO). The Union does not challenge the Service’s right to establish
a WOO, but argues that the WOO may not be used to violate the National Agreement.
The Union insists that Articles 85D and 85G require the Serv ice to fully utilize ODL
.
carriers before requiring non-ODL carriers to work overtime. It refers to the JCA.M explanation of
Article 8.5.D, which states:
One purpose ofthe Overtime Desired List is to excuse full-time carriers not
wishing to work overtime from having to work overtime. Before requiring a non-
ODL carrier to work overtime on a nonscheduled day or offhis/her own assignment
on a regularly scheduled day, management must seek to use a carrier from the ODL,
even if the ODL carrier would be working penalty overtime.
This provision, says the Union, indicates the importance the parties placed on protecting non-
ODL carrier from being forced to work overtime. It points to the testimony ofthe non-ODL carriers
as to their reasons for not placing themselves on the ODL, arguing that the harm done by the Service
by restricting their ability to lead their lives as they wish has been cumulative and irreparable.
The Union submits that management has failed to meet its obligation to schedule carriers into
vacant routes several days in advance, as stated in Section 126 of Handbook M-39. The Union
denies there were any unscheduled absences on this date, noting that the absence of the one em-
ployee identified by management had been scheduled at least as early as May 25, 201 1 It explained
.
that this employee had a long-term illness pre-dating June 4.
The Union argues that the ODL carriers could have worked the overtime within the WOO.
It says either or both of the non-scheduled carriers could have been called in to work, or the
scheduled carriers could have been required to work additional hours, This could have been
accomplished, says the Union, by asking carriers to waive their lunch period or having them report
for work 30 minutes early. Furthermore, the Union avers the station is understaffed by as many as
seven carriers. With 38 routes and one auxiliary in the station, the Union notes this amounts to an
18% shortage of staff.

4. Usps Case No. JO6N-4J-C
I 1335738
DRTNo 05212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 4
The Union points out that there have been several grievance settlements at this facility when
non-ODL carriers were required to work overtime. In addition to monetary remedies, it says
management has agreed to cease and desist from this practice. It cites the B Team decision in a
grievance arising on March 30, 20 1 1 stating as follows:
,
The information in the file lends its support to the union’s contentions that
management, th ough well within their rights to establish a WOO, failed to meet their
.
obligation to adequately plan in advance so as to meet the requirements ofthe WOO
and protect the rights of its employees under Article 85.G.
the fact that management needed to draft (12) non-OTDL carriers on the
day in question, would also lend support to the unions argument that the WOO is
dysfunctional in its current form.
Concluding that the Service has violated the Agreement, as well as the cease and desist orders
ofprior grievance settlements, the Union asks that the grievance be sustained. As a remedy, it asks
the Arbitrator to direct that both the ODL carriers be made whole by being paid up to 1 2 hours for
time lost or worked by non-ODL carriers. It also asks that the non-ODL carriers who were drafted
for overtime be made whole by being paid an additional 50% premium for the hours they worked
on June 4, 201 1 Finally, the Union asks that the Service be directed to cease and desist all viola-
.
tions and abide by Article 8, Sections 8.5.C2 and 8.5G. In support ofits position, the Union cites
the following Awards:
BO1N-4B-C 06072667 Arbitrator Cenci
EO1N-4E-C 06042723 Arbitrator Dilts
EO1N-4E-C 061 75483 Arbitrator Dilts
EO1N-4E-C 06260805 Arbitrator Dilts
JO 1 N-4J-C 09291811 Arbitrator Dilts
BO1N-4B-C 06079858 Arbitrator Deinhardt
CO6N-4C-C 09190271 Arbitrator Wallace-Curry
AO6N-4A-C 08305269)
AO6N-4A-C 08305275) Arbitrator Rosen

5. Usps Case No. JQ6N-4J-C 11335738
DRTNo 05 212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 5
Position of the Service:
The Service argues the Union has failed to meet its burden ofproofby establishing a prima
fade case. It cites the testimony ofPamela Davis, who was the Officer-in-Charge ofthe St. Charles
Post Office at the time, that many ofthe carrier routes that day did not have sufficient mail volume.
It avers that St. Charles, as the rest ofthe country, has been experiencing an ongoing decline in mail
volume, and a resultant decline in revenue. According to the Service, Davis had identified multiple
hours of undertime, which explains why she did not schedule volunteers to work on their non-
scheduled day. Given the fact that there are fewer deliveries on Saturdays due to businesses being
closed, the Service contends this was not an unusual situation.
The Service states that Transitional Employees and ODL carriers were assigned overtime up
to the WOO before it drafted non-ODL carriers for overtime work. It insists that had the ODL
carriers been assigned overtime up to their maximum, they would have worked beyond the WOO
and the Dispatch of Value would have been missed.
The Service points out that full-time carriers are guaranteed eight hours ofwork or pay in lieu
of when scheduled to work, Because the non-ODL carriers worked a total of 6.03 hours on other
than their own routes, the Service contends the Union is advocating inefficiency by asking that it be
required to use ODL carriers on their non-scheduled days.
The Service concludes it had a right to schedule non-ODL carriers to perform overtime work
under the National Agreement. It cites Article 8.5.D, stating “Ifthe voluntary “Overtime Desired”
list does not provide sufficient qualified people, qualified full-time regular employees not on the list
may be required to work overtime on a rotating basis. . . .“ Denying that it violated the Agreement,
the Service asks that the grievance be denied. In support of its position, the Service cites the
following Awards:
B1ON-4B-C 05182951)
BO1N-4B-C 05183011) Arbitrator LaLonde
AO1N-4A-C 06061330 Arbitrator Imhoff
H4C-NA-C 30 Arbitrator Mittenthal
KO1N-4K-C 06201761)
KO lN-4K-C 06201784)
KO1N-4K-C 06201804) Arbitrator Lurie

6. Usps Case No. JO6N-4J-C 1 1335738
DRTNo. 05-21258!
Grievant: Class Action
Page 6
118N-5B-C 1 7682 Arbitrator Aaron
AOl N-4A-C 06040079 Arbitrator Deinhardt
JO6N -4J-C 1 03 05 73 0 Arbitrator Simon
Discussion:
The assignment of overtime has long been a contentious issue between labor and manage-
ment in all industries throughout this country. There have always been employees whose goal is to
maximize their income by seeking as much overtime work as possible. At the same time, there have
always been employees willing to forego additional compensation in return for more freedom to
spend their time away from work. Conflicts arise, as it has in this case, when those seeking more
overtime are deprived of work opportunities because those who do not want additional work hours
are required to perform overtime. One group claims they are economically harmed while the other
asserts a more intangible loss.
The Union and the Postal Service have approached this dichotomy by establishing, under the
National Agreement, a means for employees to express their preference. In an ideal world, only
those employees who have placed themselves on the Overtime Desired List will be called for
overtime work. Those who have not would be free to make commitments for activities outside of
their regular work hours. Ifonly the world worked so perfectly. ODL carriers might be unavailable
or already scheduled to work their maximum hours. The parties have agreed, though, that when
ODL carriers are available for overtime work, they are to be given preference for such work over
employees who are not on the ODL. Article 8.5.D ofthe National Agreement states:
Ifthe voluntary “Overtime Desired” list does not provide sufficient qualified people,
qualified full-time regular employees not on the list may be required to work over-
time on a rotating basis with the first opportunity assigned to the junior employee.
In explaining this provision, the USPS-NALC Joint Contract Administration Manual (JCAM
2009) states as follows:
Mandatory Overtime. One purpose ofthe Overtime Desired List is to excuse full-
time carriers not wishing to work overtime from having to work overtime. Before
requiring a non-ODL carrier to work overtime on a non-scheduled day or off his/her
own assignment on a regularly scheduled day, management must seek to use a carrier

7. Usps Case No. JO6N-4J-C 1 1335738
DRT No. 05-212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 7
from the ODL, even if the ODL carrier would be working penalty overtime. How-
ever, if the Overtime Desired List does not provide sufficient qualified full-time
regulars for required overtime, Article 8 5 .D permits management to move offthe list
.
and require non-ODL carriers to work overtime on a rotating basis starting with the
junior employee. This rotation begins with the junior employee at the beginning of
each calendar quarter. Absent an LMOU provision to the contrary, employees who
are absent on a regularly scheduled day (e.g. sick leave or annual leave) when it is
necessary to use non-ODL employees on overtime will be passed over in the rotation
until the next time their name comes up in the regular rotation.
Management may seek non-ODL volunteers rather than selecting non-volunteers on
the basis ofjuniority. Normally, carriers not on the Overtime Desired List may not
grieve the fact that they were not selected to work overtime.
The provisions of Article 8.5.D do not apply in the case of full-time letter carriers
working on their own assignment on a regularly scheduled day. That situation is
governed by Article 8.5.C.2.d as amended by the letter carrier paragraph above.
Some arbitrators have recognized that the Union has established a prima facie case by
showing, as it has here, that non-ODL carriers were required to work overtime while ODL carriers
were available. For example, in Case No. BOJN-4B-C 06072667, Arbitrator Eileen A. Cenci wrote:
. While the burden ofproofis on the Union to establish a contract violation
. .
as in any contract case, once it has done so, the burden shifts to the Postal Service to
prove that its decision to schedule non-ODTL [sic] carriers was based upon opera-
tional necessity (Campagna, #C05 187029).
In this case, the Union has established a prima facie case by proving that three
carriers who were not on the OTDL were required to work overtime on February 6,
2006 even though there were other carriers in the same office who were on the OTDL
and had not worked twelve hours on the day in question or sixty hours for the week.
In the absence of the new evidence and argument that was excluded, the Postal
Service has not shown an operational need to assign overtime to carriers who were
not on the OTDL in order to efficiently meet delivery goals. The Union has therefore
met its burden of proof and established a violation of the National Agreement.
Other arbitrators have held the Union to a higher burden of proof. Arbitrator Jacqueline A.
Imhoff, in Case No. AOJN-4A-C 06061330, summarized some of those decisions, writing:
Arbitrators on the national level whose opinions are determined to be
precedent setting, have held that meeting a window ofoperations justified simultane

8. usps Case No. JO6N-4J-C 1 1335738
DRTNo. 05-212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 8
ous scheduling ofOTDL and non OTDL carriers before the OTDL carriers have been
maxirnliLd [Arhitiatot Richud Mittcnthal 1114(—NA—C3() (1991 )
Management submitted several awards in which the arbitrators concurred that
it is reasonable for the Postal Service to meet the needs ofits customers by establish-
ing a window ofoperations. They have been in agreement that, in order to maintain
the integrity ol that window there arc times when Management is justified in
assigning overtime simultaneously to 0 WI and non OTDL earners The arbitrators
in concurrence are: Linda Robins Franklin [394N-4B-C 99182158, (July 9, 200
[cicl)1 Sherrie Rose Talmadgc [BOl N-4B-C 0223 1446 (May I 4, 2000)], Roger
Maher [BO1N-43-C D2247724 (February 1, 2005)j; Jo Ann Nixon [GOIN-4G-C
0321 8936 (September 29, 2004)1; Jonathan Klein [COIN-4C-C 03200698 (July 28,
2005)j, John Dorsey [BO1N-4B-C 03 1 20985 (August 23, 2004)], and Herbert Marx,
Jr. [BO1N-4B-C 05064012 (September 7, 2005)).
In the Marx award, the arbitrator established the burdens ofproofrequired of
both parties. He relied on an award by Arbitrator Lancaster [BO TN-4B-C 03186887
(June 3, 2004)] in which Arbitrator Lancaster held:
The Point is that the concept of “operational windows” does
in fact exist. In cases where management presents evidence and/or
argument of the legitimate existence of a “window” the Union must
do more than simply point to the maximum outlined in Article 85.G
ofthe Agreement. Likewise, management must be fully prepared to
refute argument and/or evidence submitted by the NALC with intent
to diminish the legitimacy of management’ s claims.
Marx concluded that the burden of proof is required of both parties. He stated that
the burden could not be met by the Union simply stating the number ofhours that the
OTDL employees did not work on the days at issue. That does not prove there was
a violation of the Agreement. He went on to say:
“The Union must also address whether rescheduling of ODL
employees (for example, earlier starting times) would have been an
effective means to accomplish the day’ s delivery and collection tasks.
To the degree the Union has done so, the Postal Service is then re
quired to justify the need and extent of non-ODL employees.”
The instant case is not simply one involving the simultaneous scheduling of ODL and non
ODL employees in order to meet the WOO. What distinguishes this case is the fact that two ODL

9. Usps Case No. JO6N-4J-C 11335738
DRTNo. 05-212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 9
employees, J. A. Lynch and J. T. James, were on their non-scheduled day and, according to the
Union, were not offered the overtime work opportunities. Davis did not know ifeither ofthem was
called or available. Although she testified that they usually did not get non-scheduled ODL
employees to come in, the Arbitrator must assume they were available in the absence of evidence
to the contrary.
On this day, there were vacant routes due to the facility not being fully staffed. In addition,
there was one vacancy caused by an employee on sick leave. Davis testified that this was an
unscheduled absence. The Union, however, alleges, and the Service does not refute, that this
employee, Carrier McCullough, had been offwork for some time due to having had knee surgery.
The Arbitrator does not find this absence to be truly unscheduled. There is no evidence ofany other
employees calling in to be absent that day.
Based upon the record before him, the Arbitrator finds that the Service could have avoided
using non-ODL employees for overtime work had either of the non-scheduled ODL carriers been
called in, In light ofthe total overtime worked that day, the Arbitrator does not find that using either
Lynch or James would have resulted in undertime for any ofthe carriers, considering that there were
still several open routes to which they could pivot. There is no evidence to the contrary. Doing so
would have resulted in approximately two hours less overtime to the ODL carriers who were
regularly assigned that day.
The Arbitrator concludes that the Service was in violation ofthe National Agreement when
it forced non-ODL employees to work overtime on June 4, 201 1 when there were ODL employees
available to work. The Service shall be required to compensate the ODL employees for the 6.03
hours oflost overtime opportunity in a manner to be determined by the Union. Consistent with the
findings ofnumerous other arbitrators, it is found that the non-ODL carriers who received payment
for their overtime service are not entitled to any further remedy. In Case No. EOJN-4E-C 06260805,
Arbitrator David A. Dilts cited the decision of Arbitrator Linda DiLeone Klein in Case No. 194N-
41-C 97122042 holding that the overtime pay received by the non-ODL carriers was all that was due
as a remedy. The Arbitrator also agrees with the decision of Arbitrator Cenci, supra, that an order
to cease and desist is not appropriate. She wrote:

10. Usps Case No. JO6W4J-C I 1335738
DRTNo 05 212581
Grievant: Class Action
Page 10
there may be circumstances in which the Service would have a legitimate opera-
tional need to simultaneously schedule OTDL and non-OTDL carriers for overtime,
even though such circumstances were not proved in this case. Each case must
therefore be evaluated on its own facts to determine whether the circumstances that
would justify such simultaneous scheduling existed.
Award:
The Statement of Issue is answered in the affirmative and the grievance is sustained. The
Service is directed to compensate the ODL carriers for a total of 6O3 hours in a manner to be
determined by the Union. The Arbitrator shall retainjurisdiction for sixty days from the date ofthis
Award solely to resolve any disputes related to the remedy granted. No further reliefis granted under
this Award.
a . i on, rbitrator
Dated May 7 2012
Arlington Heights, Illinois