Find Your Branch

Facts Matter

Facts Matter
By Ivan D. Butts
NAPS National President

Hello, NAPS brothers and sisters. At the beginning of my time as your NAPS president, I had a conversation with the UPMA president at an event we both were attending. He noted our associations’ minimal engagement with one another and my interest in changing that. The idea appealed to me because NAPS’ membership at that time comprised more than 20% of all postmasters. Conventional wisdom held that 20% was the threshold under Title 39 for NAPS to represent postmasters.

After all, Section 1004(b) of Title 39 states: “... Upon presentation of evidence satisfactory to the Postal Service that a supervisory organization represents a majority of supervisors, that an organization (other than an organization representing supervisors) represents at least 20% of postmasters, or that a managerial organization (other than an organization representing supervisors or postmasters) represents a substantial percentage of managerial employees, such organization or organizations shall be entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees.”

However, when NAPS took our appeal of our lawsuit against the Postal Service contesting the correctness of the FY16-19 pay package to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, we persuaded the appeals court that the 20% requirement did not apply to NAPS. Our chief litigator, Andrew D. Freeman, and his excellent team at Brown Goldstein & Levy successfully argued to the court that the text and structure of section 1004(b) meant that NAPS stood as the only USPS management association entitled under federal law to represent all EAS employees in matters of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees.

In other words, the appeals court said UPMA could represent postmasters and managerial employees, but NAPS more broadly represented all EAS employees, including supervisors, postmasters and managerial employees. Because of the DC Circuit’s precedential decision (issued Feb. 22, 2022), this interpretation of Title 39 now is settled law.

Now, back to NAPS’ attempt to engage with UPMA’s leadership. At the time when I favored more engagement with UPMA, the number of NAPS postmaster members was steadily growing. I felt that engaging with UPMA would help demonstrate NAPS’ continued and growing connectedness with all postmasters. At first, moments of cordiality between our two organizations ensued, despite the calls by some NAPS leaders to refrain from engaging with UPMA due to prior disputes—not an illegitimate concern.

In retrospect, I earlier underestimated the legal capacity of NAPS to represent all postmasters. The DC Circuit Court’s decision now clearly affirms the entitlement of NAPS (as well as UPMA) to represent postmasters. Yet, soon after NAPS filed its lawsuit in 2019 in federal district court, UPMA sought to intervene and sided with the Postal Service in its attempts to quash NAPS’ lawsuit.

Put simply, UPMA sought to undermine NAPS’ representation claims and our quest for better pay for all EAS members. Fortunately, UPMA’s request to intervene was rejected by the district court. And three years later, the circuit appeals court—in a unanimous decision—ruled that NAPS represented all postmasters and managerial employees, as well as supervisors. Today, postmasters and representation of their interests are better off because of NAPS’ advocacy and the appeals court’s decision.

Since then, UPMA has attempted to explain its earlier actions in siding with the USPS in our lawsuit as limited to the representation issue and not pay; that is incorrect. Here is the problem with UPMA’s explanation. In its pleadings before the district court, UPMA never requested the court to hear separately, or “bifurcate” in legalese, the representation and pay issues.

UPMA could have taken this approach to demonstrate its limited interest in the issue of who is entitled to represent postmasters. But UPMA never pursued that approach. Instead, the association remained in lock step with the USPS on the representation and pay issues—fighting against better pay for its own members, as well as all EAS employees.

As we know, the DC Circuit Appeals Court, as part of its 2022 decision, remanded the case to the lower court for further findings on separate issues unrelated to postmaster interests. And, even since then, UPMA has continued to be in lockstep with the USPS on pay issues and against the best interests of postmasters and all EAS employees.

To this point, UPMA, after receiving the settled law decision on representation, continued to move the case forward and petitioned the court for it to be heard en banc—a French term meaning “on the bench.” In other words, all judges of an appellate court sit together to hear a case as opposed to the routine disposition by a panel of three judges. In the Ninth Circuit Court, an en banc panel consists of 11 randomly selected judges. UPMA’s request was denied.

It’s also interesting to note that, to this day, UPMA still is in lock step with the USPS, fighting against the two remaining issues that were returned to the lower courts. The first is pay for EAS employees under the FY16-19 pay agreement. The second issue is the “small” number of USPS Headquarters EAS employees who are not represented by NAPS. Why is that?

Why have UPMA leaders fought for four years against the interests of their own members? Perhaps Matthew 15:8 offers the clearest insight. The scripture reads: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.” In other words: UPMA’s leaders honor our postmasters with their lips, while their hearts are far away from the needs of postmasters for a fair and equitable pay system.

Supervisors, postmasters and managers are not hearing the truth from UPMA’s leaders as the organization pursues its latest membership campaign. And what will prospective members gain, except a “free year” of membership without adequate representation? Sadly, nothing. Is that a price any prospective UPMA member should be willing to pay?

NAPS always has been—and will remain—the foremost postal management association under federal law, entitled to represent all EAS employees and participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees. That is settled law. And that’s a fact.

In solidarity…