UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ~c-kCLAIFED SENIORITY INPASSEARISING IN LOCAL NEGQTfTATIONS . := ~~!
'-and- of r ! u,
AWARD ISSUED :
ANERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,AFL-CIO
Oct~E~, 1973
. JUL 121974
BACKGROUND Oii:ECTO3, OFF ICE &F u;o rEUTIOiScE .̀lir i RE"19?!
This case is before the undersigned Arbitrator fordecision pursuant to Article XV o£ the July 20, 1971 NationalAgreement between the U . S . Postal Service and seven PostalUnions, including four which later were merged to become theAmerican Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO .
The issue here raised by the APWU at the nationallevel is whether a proposal submitted-by its local in the NewYork Metropolitan Area, for local negotiation pursuant to aprocedure set forth in the 1971 National Agreement, properlywas negotiable. The local proposal in essence would haverequired that "within tour" temporary work assignments ofClerks, to meet varying work loads at various defined worklocations (including assignments from one work floor to another),be made on the basis of moving junior employees first so thatsenior Clerks would remain on their usual assignments at theirnormal work locations .
A hearing was held in Washington, D . C ., on June 11,1973, and the parties had full opportunity to present evidenceand argument. Thereafter the Postal Service and APWU filedbriefs setting forth their respective positions .
C : :: :.
2 . Postal Service
a . The Fact Setting
There is little dispute as to the basic facts raising 4the present issue . Appendix C of the 1971 National Agreementlisted various items for further negotiation between the , parties,commencing August 16 , 1971, including an issue designated as"local implementation ." - As a result of their negotiations onthis last subject, the parties ultimately agreed upon the ,following (which is reproduced as Article XXX in the APWUprinted version of the 1971 National Agreement) :
"Local Implementation
"The parties recognize that it is impracticalto set forth in this Agreement all detailedmatters relating to local conditions of em-ployment and further negotiations regarding.local conditions will be required with re-spect to local installations, post offices,and facilities : Accordingly , designated-agents of the Unions signatory to this" Agree-ment and the representatives of the Employershall negotiate such matters on a local level,and any agreement reached shall be incorpor-ated in memoranda of understanding . No suchnegotiations or memoranda of understandingshall be inconsistent or in conflict withthis Agreement , nor deprive any employee ofany rights or benefits provided for underthis Agreement .
3. Postal Service
"Local negotiations shall commence on February1, 1972. If agreement is not reached at thelocal level within 30 days, the issues remain-ing in dispute shall be referred for impasseresolution to the regional level .
"Impasses at the regional level which are notresolved by May 1, 1972, shall be referred forsettlement to the national level . Unresolvedimpasses at the national level may thereafterbe submitted to arbitration at the nationallevel at the option of a Union or Unions signa-tory hereto or the Employer if agreement hasnot been reached by June 15, 1972 .
"For the purposes of providing such arbitration,the following procedure shall be followed :The Unions and the Employer shall each nameone arbitrator . The two arbitrators thusselected shall seek to agree upon a thirdneutral arbitrator . In the event they failto do so within 5 days, the neutral arbitratorshall be appointed by the American ArbitrationAssociation . The cost of the neutral shall beshared equally by the Unions and the Employer ."
(Underscoring added .)
Pursuant 1o this provision local negotiations subse-quently were initiated in New York City between the New YorkMetropolitan Area Postal Workers Local Union and representatives
4 . Postal Service
of the New York City Postmaster . The Local Union representa-tives submitted the following initial proposal with respect to"Seniority Rights" :
"D-1 Movement of clerks within a defined workarea shall be made on a seniority basis .
"D-2 Movement of clerks from one defined workarea to another shall be made on a senioritybasis .
"D-3 The right of all distributors in Incomingdivisions to work in their defined work areasby service seniority is recognized at alltimes, as well as the right of all distribu-tors in Outgoing divisions to work on theirscheme assignments by service seniority isrecognized at all times .
"D-4 Service seniority shall prevail at alltimes in movement o£ clerical employees from.one work floor to another work floor and from
- one-division to another division .
"D-5 These instructions are equally applicableand shall govern all full - time and part-timeclerks ."
Following review of this proposal the New York CityPostal Service spokesman advised the Local Union representativesthat it was not negotiable , under the above quoted agreement
5 . Postal Service
concerning local implementation , because its objectives wereinconsistent with the 1971 National Agreement and specificallyArticles III and VII . The Postal Service spokesman suggestedthat the Union submit a revised proposal to correct this prob- .lem. A new local Union proposal then was submitted as follows :
"1. Movement of clerks from one . general workarea to another during a scheduled tour o£duty shall be made on a seniority basis ac-cording to need in all stations .
"2. The right of all distributors in incom-ing divisions to work in their defined workareas by service seniority is recognized atall times , as well as the right of all dis-tributors in outgoing divisions to work ontheir scheme assignments by service seniorityis recognized at all times .
"3. When clerical employees are detailed be-tween defined work areas for one hour or less,,service seniority should generally be observed .
"4. '{When clerical employees are detailed be-tween defined work areas for periods in excessof one hour , services seniority must be ob-served .
"5 . Service seniority shall prevail at alltimes in movement of clerical employees fromone work floor to another work floor and fromone division to another division . The generalwork areas at the terminal points are : (Note :See Pages 3-6)
6 . Postal Service
"6 . Service seniority shall prevail at alltimes in movement of clerical employees at24 hour carrier delivery stations in assign-ment to a specific detail or from a specificdetail to distribution work and in movementfrom one floor to another . General workareas at these carrier stations are :
Up Mail First ClassUp Mail FlatsIncoming ParcelsCity First ClassCity FlatsOutgoing Parcels
"7 . These instructions are equally applicableand shall govern regular clerks and part-timefixed schedule clerks ."
The revised Local Union proposal also was said by theNew York Postal Service representatives to be inconsistentwith the National Agreement and so not properly subject tolocal negotiation . This impasse later was considered atregional and national levels and then the parties seeminglyproceeded to submit the interpretive problem to this Arbitratorfor decision under Article XV . There was no discussion be-tween the parties concerning possible modification of Items 1through 7 of the revised local proposal, either separately oras a whole , to eliminate claimed inconsistency with the 1971National Agreement .
The following provisions of the 1971 National Agree-ment seem relevant :
7. Postal Service
"ARTICLE III - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
"SECTION i . POSTAL SERVICE RIGHTS . The Employer shallhave the exclusive right, subject to the provisions ofthis Agreement and consistent with applicable laws andregulations :
"A . To direct employees of the Employer in the per-
"B .
"C .
formance of official duties ;
To hire, promote, transfer , assign , and retainemployees in positions within the Postal Serviceand to suspend , demote, discharge , or take other ,disciplinary action against such employees ;
To maintain the efficiency of the operations en-trusted to it ;
"D. To determine the methods, means and personnelby which such operations are to be conducted ;
"E .
~~£ e
To prescribe a uniform dress to be worn by lettercarriers and other designated employees ; and
To take whatever actions may be necessary to carryout its mission in emergency situations, i .e .,an unforeseen circumstance or a combination ofcircumstances which calls for immediate action ina situation which is not expected to be a recurringnature .
8 . Postal Service
"ARTICLE VII - EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
"SECTION 2 . EMPLOYMENT AND WORK ASSIGNMENTS .
"A . Normally work in-different crafts, occupationalgroups or levels will not be combined into onejob . However, in order to maximize full-timeemployment opportunities and provide necessaryflexibility, management may after studied effortto meet its requirements by combining withincraft or occupational groups establish full-time'or part-time scheduled assignments by includingwork within different crafts or occupational groups .
"B . In the event of insufficient work on any particularday or days in full-time or part-time employee'sown scheduled assignment, management may assign him_to any available work in the same wage level forwhich he is qualified, consistent with his knowledgeand experience, in order to maintain the number ofwork hours of his basic work schedule .
t"C . During exceptionally heavy workload periods for one
occupational group, employees in an occupationalgroup experiencing a light workload period may beassigned to work in the same wage level commen-surate with their capabilities, to the heavy work-load area for such time as management determinesnecessary .
9 . Postal Service
"D. The number of casual employees who may be employedin any period, other than December , shall not ex-ceed 8Z of the total number of employees as covered,by this agreement , except as to employees employedpursuant to Public Policy Employment Type Programs .
"ARTICLE XII - SENIORITY
"SECTION 2 . PRINCIPLES OF SENIORITY , POSTING ANDREASSIGNMENTS .
"A. The parties agree to abide by the terms and condi-tions of Article . XiI (Reassignments ), Article XIII.(Assignment of Ill or injured Regular and SubstituteEmployees ), Article XXII (Posting ), and the Supple-mental Agreements on Seniority, as stated in theAgreement between the United States Post Office De-partment and the seven (7) national exclusive unions,contained in POD Publication 53, dated March 9, 1968,with' the following understanding :
To insure a more efficient and stable workforce , an employee may be designated a suc-cessful bidder no more than five (5) timesduring the duration of this Agreement,unless such bid :
err:.
10. Postal Service
nB .
"1 ."2 .
"3 .
is to a job in a higher wage level,is due to elimination or repo.sting ofhis duty assignment, orenables an employee to become assigned toa station closer to his place of residence .
Rural carriers are covered by the provisions of A,above , except with respect to those seniority pro-visions in Section 1007 of the Postal ReorganizationAct which are intended to prevail .
"SECTION 3 . INTENT .
The parties recognize that it is impractical to setforth in this Agreement all the matters relating tolocal implementation of the above seniority provi-sions of this Agreement , and that, in some cases,it may be necessary for the local parties to incor-porate local implementation in memoranda of under-standing . Such understandings, however, shallneither conflict with this Agreement, nor deprivean employee o£ any rights or benefits providedfof under this Agreement . Such local memoranda ofunderstanding shall be subject to the grievance andarbitration procedure .
"B. Because of the importance of seniority , reassign-ments, and posting to both the Employer and theUnions, the parties agree to establish a jointcommittee to study the complexity and interrelation-ships of the issues , to define the differences, andto recommend alternatives for consideration of bothparties at least sixty (60) days prior to thetermination of this Agreement .
"A.
11. Postal Service
"ARTICLE XIX - SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
"This 'Working Agreement` constitutes the entireAgreement between the parties and correctly ex-presses all of the rights and obligations ofthe parties except for those specific subjectswhich the parties have formally agreed to con-tinue negotiating after this 'Working Agreement'is concluded . The parties acknowledge that eachhad the opportunity to make demands and propos-als with respect to all collective bargainingsubjects . Each party agrees that for the lifeof this 'Working Agreement' the other partiesshall not be obligated to bargain with respectto any subject not covered in the 'WorkingAgreement' or reserved by formal understandingas a subject for continued negotiation duringthe term of this Agreement .'F
(Underscoring added .
It also is relevant that the 1968 Agreement, betweenthe seven craft Unions and the United States Post Office De-partment, included in its Article VII detailed procedurescovering local negotiations, including negotiations with LocalUnions not affiliated with the National organizations repre-senting the particular crafts covered by the 1968 NationalAgreement . Article VII-13 of the 1968 POD National Agreementstated :
12 . Postal Service
"Both parties , when formulating proposals orcounter-proposals, shall consider that ArticlesI through V o£ this Agreement are not subjectto local negotiation, except that the localagreement should identify the parties to thatagreement . Furthermore, both parties shallconsider that they may not negotiate provi-sions that :
"a. Are in conflict with law .
"b . Are in conflict with regulations of theDepartment or Government agencies such asthe Civil Service Commission and the De-partment of Labor, which have appropriatejurisdiction under Executive Order 10988 .
"c. Repeat, reword, paraphrase or conflictwith the National Agreement and NationalSupplements . (This is not to be inter-preted to mean that local negotiationsshall be restricted to only those optionsprovided in articles in the National Agree-ment and National Supplements .)
"d. Are not within the administrative discretionof the installation head ."
13 . Postal Service
b . The Contentions
1 . The Union
The Union asserts that the local proposal here under 10review clearly implements the 1971 National Agreement . Therecould hardly be any question, it suggests, that application ofseniority in making within tour work assignments represents alegitimate implementation of the Seniority provisions . Thus,says the Union, there is no reason to go beyond the preciseterms of the 1971 Agreement in order to sustain the Union .Indeed, where the Agreement is clear, the fact that proposalswere made and rejected in negotiations does not permit theArbitrator to go outside the Agreement .
Even were extrinsic evidence to be used, however, 11the Postal Service in the . 1971 national negotiations unsuc-cessfully sought a clause prohibiting local negotiation con-cerning seniority, before agreeing to the present ArticleXII, Section 3 . And ; says the Union, this provision"specifically provides that local matters of seniority arenegotiable ."
Furthermore, the Union emphasizes that the New York 12Metropolitan Area Union local proposal does not differ essen-tially from what had been done for more than 10 years in theManhattan Post Office . The Union's local agreement with theNew York Post Office, effectuated under the 1968 NationalAgreement, and thus applicable until negotiation of the 1971National Agreement, included the following :
14 . Postal Service
"D. REASSIGNMENT WITHIN TOUR :
"1 . Movement o£ clerks from one general workarea to another during a scheduled tourof duty shall be made on a seniority basisaccording to need in all stations .
"2 . The right of all distributors in incomingdivisions to work in their defined workareas by service seniority is recognizedat all times, as well as the right of alldistributors in outgoing divisions to workon their scheme assignments by serviceseniority is recognized at all times .
"3 . When clerical employees are detailed be-tween defined work areas for one hour orless, service seniority should generallybe observed.
"4. When clerical employees ar& detailed be-tween defined work areas for periods inexcess of one hour, service senioritywust be observed .
"5 . Service seniority shall prevail at alltimes in movement of clerical employeesfrom one work floor to another workfloor and from one division to anotherdivision ."
C
15 . Postal Service
Since the 1968 POD National Agreement specified that 13no local agreement should "conflict " with the National Agree-ment , the Union reasons that the parties already in effect hadfound no impropriety in a local understanding such as soughtin the present Union proposal .
The Union notes that 1972 local negotiation for 4Clerks and Hail Handlers in the Bronx Post Office producedagreements for observance o£ seniority in certain within tourassignments . Also 1972 local APWU negotiations in Phila-delphia produced agreement that "temporary" movement of em-ployees from their assignment to other work units would bedone "by juniority " . Likewise the 1972 Pittsburgh localnegotiations produced agreement dealing with assignments withintours, and also to the effect that "Clerks moved out of theunit, state secondary or other work center shall be transferredon a juniority basis ."
Finally , the Union notes that while Articles III andVII of the 1971 National Agreement contemplate certain rightsrelative to work assignments , nonetheless "neither Article IIIor Article VII prohibits movement on a seniority basis in thecircumstances contemplated by the proposal of the Union ."Thus the Union proposal properly must be regarded as a "localdetail" of seniority .
16 . Postal Service
2 . Postal Service
The Postal Service has no doubt that the disputed New 16York Metropolitan Area Postal Workers' proposal conflicts withthe 1971 National Agreement, since Article III of that Agreementrecognizes the employer's exclusive right to assign employeesto various positions within the Postal Service so long as suchaction is consistent with . applicable laws and regulations andthe provisions of the 1971 National Agreement . It stressesthat Article VII, Section 2-B and -c include provisions specific-ally covering (1) assignment of scheduled employees "on any-particular day or days" to available work "in the same wagelevel" in order to maintain the number of hours in an employee'sbasic work schedule, and (2) assignment of employees in anoccupational group to work in the same wage level in order todeal with fluctuating workloads in various areas .
P ' The Postal Service particularly emphasizes that one 17Union proposal in the negotiations leading to the 1971 NationalAgreement stated : "When temporary assignments must be made,including details within a work shift, and employees do not seekthe details,_junior employees shall be detailed ." This proposalwas not adopted . The same proposal was advanced again by APRUduring separate craft negotiations commencing August 16, 1971and again was-rejected . (While the Union asserts that theseproposals really were under a heading of "posting," it is ap-parent that they were not addressed at all to a posting problem .)Since these specific Union proposals were not embraced by thenegotiators, and Article XIX of the 1971 National Agreement con-stitutes a "zipper clause," the Postal Service reasons thatlocal negotiations aimed at the same objective as the 1971 Unionproposals are in conflict with the 1971 National Agreement .
17 . Postal Service
Thus the Postal Service deems the local Union pro- 18posal here to be plainly inconsistent with relevant provisionsof the 1971 National Agreement . It urges that local agree-ments under the 1971 National Agreement are in a differentposture from local agreements negotiated under the 1968 PostOffice Department National Agreement , and cites portions ofthree Opinions of Arbitrators in cases under the 1971 NationalAgreement to the effect that the August 12, 1970 Act of Congresscreated an entirely new collective bargaining relationship sothat the parties in effect were writing on a "clean slate"when they negotiated in 1971 .
The Postal Service brief distinguishes the pre -1971 19practices and local agreements as follows :
"Article VII .D. of the 1968 Agreement setsforth provisions for the review of localagreements and the steps to be taken in theevent of a conflict with 'law, the PostalNanual or the National Agreement , and supple-ments thereto .' Conflict with the 1968Agreement , however, must not be confused withconflict or inconsistency with the 1971National Agreement . Although the seniorityprovisions of the 1968 Agreement were adoptedin 1971, they were adopted following a rejec-tion of a demand substantially identical tothe local demand here at issue . Thus, giventhe unachieved demand and the Scope of theAgreement clause (Article XIX), the localdemand in issue is inconsistent or in con-flict with the 1971 National Agreement,whereas it may have been a proper subject forlocal negotiations under the past nationalagreements .
18. Postal Service
"This variation in the scope of local imple-mentations between that under the 1971 NationalAgreement and local negotiations under prioragreements evolved, in part, from major dif-ferences in the relationships between theparties noted above . Fundamentally , the PostalReorganization Act (Public Law 91 -375) movedcollective bargaining in the Postal Servicefrom the system created by Federal ExecutiveOrders (primarily Executive Order 10988) tothe private sector system of labor relationsgoverned by the National Labor Relations Act,as amended . One of the major practical dif-ferences manifested by that change is thatprior to the 1971 Agreement local unions hadindependent and direct bargaining relationshipswith individual post offices This resultedfrom the multi-tier system o£ recognition, andin some situations a local union not affiliatedwith the union parties to the national agree-ment was to be found negotiating locally underthat agreement . (See Article VII .A.7, 1968Agreement ) The authority to negotiate underthese circumstances is quite different thanthe authority under the 1971 National Agreementwhich permits local unions to negotiate only asthe 'designated agents of the Unions signatoryto the Agreement .'
"Thus , both the substantial differences in thecontract authority for local implementationbetween the 1968 and the 1971 Agreements, andthe change in the bargaining relationship be-tween the local unions and the post offices,render the practices and events prior to thecreation of the new Postal Service in 1971valueless in interpreting the 1971 NationalAgreement ."
19 . Postal Service
FINDINGS
The extent to which local parties are authorized to 20negotiate their own agreements in the context o€ a bargainingrelationship governed by a single master, national , or basicagreement--covering multitudinous operations in many differentlocations --is a matter o£ .first rank importance to all con-cerned . A master agreement hardly can treat all of the myriadlocal problems in adequate detail and where local implementationsare not authorized expressly they nonetheless seem inevitably.to arise in practice . Seasoned negotiators usually are in-clined to recognize, in any event, that local agreements orpractices should not be permitted to vary or subvert basic termsof the master agreement , since this would tend to defeat aprincipal purpose of bargaining on this basis rather than insmaller units . Thus it is not uncommon for master agreementsto recognize that local agreements and practices are permissibleonly to the extent not inconsistent with the master agreement .
The negotiators of the 1971 Postal Service National 21Agreement seemingly embraced this general approach as soundwhen they wrote the "Local Implementation " provisions , in whatnow appears as Article XXX in the APWU printed version of the1971 National Agreement . This being the first national agree-ment negotiated under the Postal Reorganization Act, moreover,the precise language which the negotiators used in treating thesubject should have been a matter o£ considerable significanceto all representatives of all parties .
In the present case , of course , there actually are 22two key provisions governing "local implementation ," under the1971 National Agreement , both of which must be given properapplication . The later and more comprehensive provision
20. Postal Service
(Article XXX) provides at least the procedural context in whichthe present seniority issue arose and in which it must be de-cided . The Arbitrator finds, however, that decision of thesubstantive seniority issue in this case must be based pri-marily upon the scope of local seniority implementation, asdefined in Article XII, Section 3-A, giving due regard to thecontext in which this provision was adopted . Thus the presentOpinion does not seek to determine or define the full scope orrange of permissible local agreements (on matters other thanseniority) under Article XXX since, at least arguably, there-might be more flexibility delegated to the local parties there-under in dealing with matters other than those governed byArticle XII, Section 3-A .
Sound decision of the present case requires that the 23revised local Union proposal be viewed as an entity . Had theparties undertaken detailed discussion of each item in theseven-point proposal, some possibly might have been modifiedor withdrawn . This did not happen and neither party now sug-gests that such detailed discussion should have taken place,was contractually required, or in fact could have produced anymeaningful compromise consistent both with the National Agree-ment and the objective of the local proposal . Notably, too,Article XXX states that local "negotiations " shall not be"inconsistent or in conflict with" the 1971 National Agreement .This somewhat unusual provision seemingly authorizes a refusalto negotiate with respect to a local demand "inconsistent" withthe 1971 National Agreement, even though full negotiation mightresult in modifications which would eliminate the conflict .(It is unnecessary to elaborate on this here, since not anissue under the presentations .)
21 . Postal Service
The essential thrust of all items in the disputed 24local proposal , in any event , is that "seniority" must controlin making assignments of Clerks during scheduled tours of duty,with "junior" employees assigned first to work areas or detailsother than those for which originally scheduled , or to whichoriginally assigned on the tour . Since this proposal is putforward as an application of seniority under Article XII ofthe 1971 National Agreement , Article XII , Section 2, con-stitutes a first point of reference . Insofar as relevant,this incorporates into the 1971 National Agreement certain-clearly defined pre -existing agreements , as follows :
" . . . Article XII (Reassignments), ArticleXIII (Assignment of Ill or Injured Regularand Substitute Employees ), Article XXII(Posting ), and the Supplemental Agreementson Seniority , as stated in the Agreementbetween the United States Post Office De-partment and the seven ( 7) national exclu-sive unions, contained in POD Publication53, dated March 9, 1968 . . . "
This specification of pre-existing agreements to beembodied in the 1971 National Agreement makes no reference tothen existing local agreements concerning applications ofseniority . Under Article XII, Section 3-A, moreover, theparties left no doubt that there would have to be "localimplementation " of a'the above seniority provisions of thisAgreement ." This clearly contemplated new local negotia-tions, after the 1971 National Agreement was executed, andproceeded to spell out that any resultant new local under-standings should not "conflict with this Agreement ."
25
22 . Postal Service
While the Union suggests that the disputed local 26proposal represents a local "detail of seniority," and thusis a conventional application of seniority principles, thereis no support for this assumption . Instead, it is unusualfor length of service to be the controlling factor which Man-agement must observe in all instances of temporary work as-signments during a given tour or shift, among employees whoare filling the same job or who have bid successfully for thesame "duty assignment ." The Union points to no language inany of the 1968 Agreement seniority provisions (incorporatedby•Article XII, Section 2) which truly may be said to be"implemented" by the disputed local proposal . While thatproposal may constitute an effort to apply seniority prin-ciples, it seeks to do so on a subject not treated in, or rele-vant to, these seniority provisions .
The Arbitrator also can find nothing in Article XII 27of the 1971 Agreement which limits the exercise of Managementdiscretion under Article III in making and changing temporarywork assignments within scheduled tours of duty, to meet fluc-tuations in workload and like operating contingencies, amongemployees regularly assigned to fill the same job or dutyassignment . The fact that supervisors often, or nearly in-variably, in practice may tend to assign junior employees toother duties_ or areas first does not establish that this alwaysis feasible, even if it represents a generally sound practice .Perhaps it should be noted also that Article VII, Section 2-Band -C include language which seems to contemplate that certaintypes .of work assignments "on any particular day" may be madein Management discretion, consistent with the employees'knowledge, experience, and capabilities .
To inject a rigid requirement that seniority always 28be observed (in reverse) in making within tour work assign-ments among Clerks filling the same job or duty assignment,
23 . Postal Service
thus hardly would seem to "implement" any specific seniorityprovision incorporated by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1971National Agreement . Article XII, Section 3-A, in so many words,authorizes only "local implementation o£ the above seniorityprovisions of this Agreement ."
When this key language was adopted the top negotiators 29recognized their practical inability to negotiate a new nationalframework of seniority policies and procedures, which forcedthem to adopt the "terms and conditions" of specifically iden-tified provisions under the 1968 Post Office Department Agreement .'In Article XII, Section 3-B, moreover, they simultaneouslyestablished a joint committee to study issues of seniority,reassignments , and postings , and to make recommendations nolater than 60 days before expiration of the 1971 National Agree-ment. When these major provisions finally were adopted, more-over, the Postal Service continued to reject the Union proposalwhich would have made seniority the controlling factor inwithin tour work assignments .
Under such circumstances it would not be reasonable 30to hold that the permissible area of local implementation onseniority-matters under Article XII, Section 3-A,, extends beyondimplementation of the specific seniority provisions listed inArticle XII,'=Section 2-A, so as to include a proposal such asthe present .
Nonetheless note must be taken of the fact that, 31under the 1968 POD National Agreement (and for some years before1968), the New York Metropolitan local had obtained a localunderstanding essentially the sane as that sought in thepresently disputed proposal, even though the 1968 NationalAgreement also provided that local parties had no authority to
24. Postal Service
negotiate provisions in conflict with the National Agreementand National Supplements . This limitation in the 1968 Agree-ment , however, was modified by the parenthetical sentence :
"(This is not to be interpreted to mean thatlocal negotiations shall be restricted toonly those options provided in articles inthe National Agreement and National Supple-ments .)"
The 1968 Agreement also established an elaborate pro- 32cedure under which regional POD and Union representatives,independently , might review local agreements to ascertain whetherthere was conflict with existing law, postal regulations, or theNational Agreement . This procedure never was invoked in respectto the earlier New York Metropolitan local agreement on withintour assignments , so it arguably could be inferred that theparties in 1971 already had recognized that such a restrictionon the making of within tour work assignments did not conflictwith the 1968 National Agreement seniority provisions .
In seeking to rebut this inference the Postal Service 33in part stresses excerpts from opinions by' Arbitrators Aaron,Ruben, and Gamser, the implication of which appears to be thatthe parties were ( in the words of Arbitrator Aaron ) "writing ona clean slate" in their 1971 negotiations ,' with the result thatearlier practices are of no value in ,dealing with interpretiveproblems under the 1971 National Agreement .
Without detailed review of the full text of cited 34decisions , this Arbitrator is not disposed to give weight to
25 . Postal Service
selected expressions from the opinions of other arbitrators,nor is there any need to rely on earlier generalizations indeciding the present case .
The review procedure in the 1968 National Agreement 35has no counterpart in the 1971 Agreement . Article XXX of the1971 Agreement, instead, flatly states that "no such negotia-tions or memoranda of understanding shall be inconsistent orin conflict with" the 1971 Agreement . This leaves no doubtthat any local understanding inconsistent with the 1971 NationalAgreement must be held invalid and unenforceable, even if notdetermined to have been invalid or unenforceable under the 1968Agreement .
It also is notable that Article XII, Section 3-A of 36the 1971 Agreement speaks only of local " implementation" ofthe "above seniority provisions," and does not authorize ex-tending application of seniority into •areas not treated in .such seniority provisions . This is in marked contrast toArticle VII-A-13-C of the 1968 Agreement, which indicates thatlocal negotiations are not restricted to only those optionsprovided in Articles in the National Agreement and NationalSupplements .
Titse differences in approach to local negotiations 37may be explained largely by the changed approach to collectivebargaining which flowed from the Postal Reorganization Act .In 1971 the seven craft unions, as exclusive bargaining repre-sentatives, were in a position to negotiate a master agreetentwhich would be applicable to all localities withit the agreedbargaining units . Moreover, the provisions for local negotia-tions to implement the 1971 National Agreement deal only withnegotiations between representatives of the Postal Service and"designated agents of the Union's signatory to this Agreement,"in contrast to 1968 .
I. .
26 . Postal Service
Finally , giving due regard to the vast number of 38local agreements involved under the 1968 Agreement , the natureof the 1968 review procedure , and its contractual context,this Arbitrator cannot believe that a failure to invoke the1968 procedure as to some particular local agreement sufficesto support a presumption that it involved no "conflict" withthe 1968 National Agreement , much less with the 1971 Agreement .
In balance , therefore , the conclusion here must be 39that the disputed local proposal does not represent an im-plementation of any identifiable provision embodied in ArticleXIY .of the 1971 National Agreement ( including the 1968 provisionsincorporated therein) and so, under the language of ArticleXII-3-A , it must be deemed inconsistent with the provisions ofArticle XII.
