RE:     Arbitrator Brogan’s Decision in the SDUS/SIPS Dispute (PDF)

We are enclosing a copy of National Arbitrator Margaret Brogran’s decision in the RI-399 jurisdictional dispute concerning the Small Delivery Unit Sorter (SDUS) and the Single Induction Package Sorter (SIPS).

At bottom, the arbitrator concluded that the NPMHU could not meet the “heavy burden of proving” that the Postal Service had acted improperly or in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner when issuing its National Craft determinations on the SDUS and SIPS.

As the Award makes clear, because the SDUS and SIPS are modeled off of the Automatic Delivery Unit Sorter (ADUS), the jurisdiction of SDUS and SIPS followed the jurisdictional assignments on the ADUS. Recognizing that, the NPMHU made only limited challenges to the Postal Service’s determinations. As to the SDUS, the NPMHU’s argument focused on the fact that, in the ADUS Award, for the first time, the Postal Service made jurisdictional assignments based on whether the machine was processing Function 1 or Function 4 mail. The SDUS determination, however, only provided jurisdiction for when the machine was processing Function 4 mail. The NPMHU argued that the Postal Service arbitrarily failed to include Function 1 jurisdictional assignments for that machine. As to the SIPS, the NPMHU argued that the Postal Service erred because its determination did not address enhancements that were planned for the SIPS, including but not limited to the introduction of a six-sided scanning tunnel.

While Arbitrator Brogan denied the NPMHU disputes, she acknowledged the underlying positions that we advanced.

On the SDUS, she denied the NPMHU argument on the ground that there was no evidence that the Postal Service had in fact utilized an SDUS to run Function 1 mail. Significantly, though, she agreed with our position that the craft determinations are based upon the operation being run as opposed to the facility in which the machine was being utilized. In other words, for the SDUS, it is not the building that determines jurisdiction but instead the function or operation being run.

On the SIPS, the arbitrator denied the NPMHU argument, noting that the craft determination is to be made and reviewed based on the facts reasonably known to the Postal Service at the time of the determination. While she denied the NPMHU dispute, as with the SDUS, she added helpful clarification—namely, that if the Postal Service were to make material modifications to the SIPS (such as adding six-sided scanning tunnels), the NPMHU could challenge the jurisdictional assignments at the “local level where facts can be adduced and all parties can participate.”

In sum, while we are disappointed in the outcome, Arbitrator Brogan provided important clarifications that will be helpful in resolving jurisdictional disputes moving forward. Should you have any questions about this decision, please contact the National CAD.  Also, please disseminate this memorandum and the attached decision as you deem appropriate.