NAPS President Ivan D. Butts, Executive Vice President Chuck Mulidore, Secretary/Treasurer Jimmy Warden and Executive Board Chair Chuck Lum attended the March 26 Zoom consultative meeting. Representing the Postal Service were Bruce Nicholson, James Timmons and Paulita Wimbush, USPS Labor Relations Policies & Programs, and Mike Melendrez, Surface Logistics.
Agenda #1
NAPS asked that, with respect to all programs and policies, including, but not limited to pilot programs the Postal Service currently is planning or developing that relate to supervisory and/or other managerial employees (i.e., all EAS employees), the Postal Service:
A. Identifies any and all such programs and policies currently being planned or developed;
B. Provides copies of all documents relating to that planning and development, including, but not limited to, draft policies, proposals, research/studies, surveys and reports; and
C. Allows NAPS to participate directly in the planning and development of those programs and policies.
The Postal Service has continued to comply with its obligations under 39 USC 1004(d). NAPS has been notified of program and policy changes related to supervisory and/or other managerial employees as defined by statute and the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. NAPS should have records of such notice; proposals are sent to NAPS prior to any decision being made regarding the same. Consistent with its statutory obligations, decisions related to programs and policies are made following the Postal Service’s consideration of feedback from NAPS, if any.
For example, we provided you a proposal in fiscal year 2023 on our intent to revise job descriptions in Mail Processing and Maintenance. You reviewed the proposal and provided concerns and recommendations. Labor Relations facilitated a meeting with you and Maintenance and Organizational Effectiveness to further discuss your recommendations. Consideration was given to your recommendations; all the recommendations were adopted prior to informing you of a decision to proceed with implementing the job descriptions.
Agenda Item #2
On Sept. 27, 2023, the USPS proposed and NAPS subsequently agreed to increase NPA base salaries in boxes 3 through 9 between 1% to 2%, with similar increases to the HERO pay matrices. Once NPA goals were announced in January 2024, these increases were reduced to previous levels.
NAPS requested that, in light of continuing economic challenges in the nation, as well as in recognition of outstanding EAS performance and commitment, that FY24 NPA pay matrices be increased once again, at a minimum, to the levels proposed in the Postal Service’s Sept. 27, 2023, correspondence to NAPS.
This request is for modifications of pay policy and is not the appropriate forum for this request.
Agenda Item #3
NAPS reported that as the S&DC process is a Headquarters function, an issue has arisen in the Washington District. A change is being made to the Everett, WA, S&DC with offices. The carriers from the Lynnwood, WA, Post Office and all but 12 routes in a different zone are moving into Everett.
The North City station carriers are moving into Lynnwood. The North City carriers are under the Seattle postmaster. The Lynnwood Level-24 postmaster is under POOM Area A; Everett is under POOM Area B. NAPS asked what officially is going to happen with the postmaster position and the office in Lynnwood. Will the position remain a Level-24 postmaster or will it be a manager position and likely down-graded?
With the movement of carriers in and out of Lynnwood, the level will be reevaluated. Currently, the agreement is if the postmaster level earned is higher, the level is adjusted; if the level is lower and encumbered, it is not adjusted. Current projections have the Lynnwood Post Office remaining at Level-24.
Agenda Item #4
NAPS asked about the status of electric vehicles (EVs) in the Vehicle Maintenance facilities:
A. What is the status of deploying EVs in Atlanta?
E-Transits for the Athens and South Atlanta S&DCs have been deployed. Battery electric NGDVs are expected to begin deliveries to the Atlanta area in late 2024.
B. Fleet Management is transitioning from SEAM to Fleet Management Information System (FMIS). What is the timeline for this to be completed and employees completely trained?
All VMFs are expected to be transitioned to FMIS by the end of FY24. VMF employees will be trained onsite during deployment at their respective VMFs.
C. Based on a survey recently completed by Fleet Management, what is the status on getting restrooms and locker rooms renovated in the VMFs?
All VMFs have been surveyed to assess restroom and locker room needs. Headquarters Facilities currently is conducting onsite assessments at locations where work is required. A specific timeline to upgrades is under development by Headquarters Facilities.
Agenda Item #5
NAPS said it would like to partner with the USPS to develop a process to resolve rejected/denied submitted mitigations as this can be critical to all EAS employees regarding salary and retirement. Currently, once the deciding official/installation head has denied the mitigation request, it is final. NAPS believes these types of disputes should be resolved in a fair and unbiased process.
NAPS’ statement—“Currently, once the deciding official/installation head has denied the mitigation request, it is final”—is incorrect. The current process follows the Unit Mitigation Approval Process Flow. The Postal Service deems the current process to be fair. It allows for resubmission to the vice president if denied by the PCES manager. The process flow chart indicates the flow process whether you are in Retail and Delivery, Processing or Logistics.
If the installation head submits the mitigation request and the district manager (for example) disapproves it, the installation head then can resubmit the request directly to the area vice president for review. The request also is sent to the executive manager, Finance, and director, Field HR, for review and recommendation. If disapproved by the vice president, there is no further appeal. The mitigation process was developed with NAPS in 2012.
Agenda Item #6
NAPS provided the following message that was sent to a supervisor, Customer Services (SCS), relative to S&DC changes on March 5, 2024:
“As information, your position in the Tropical Reef Station as SCS has now been deemed unauthorized due to the staffing changes for the Pompano Beach SDC. At this time, I will need you to please print the attached letter and preference sheet and ensure that I receive your preferences to the Pompano S&DC by March 8, 2024, no later than 5 p.m. Failure to do so will result in placement outside of the Pompano bid cluster into any vacant SCS EAS vacancy within a 50-mile radius.
“Please note: Although it is in the best interest of impacted employees to provide a preference, it is not required. If you elect not to indicate a placement preference or you do not make enough preference selections, you may be subject to a direct reassignment to an earned vacant position based on management’s discretion without your input [emphasis added]. If I do not receive your response by the deadline, I will assume you are not interested in a voluntary noncompetitive move and your preferences will not be considered.”
NAPS contended that it would appear that giving an EAS employee less than three days to make a life-altering decision is, at minimum, disrespectful of personal, family and career obligations. Why is this timeline so short? If the USPS is aware of the timeframe to move delivery units into a S&DC, then why is the process so compact? NAPS requested that the USPS give EAS employees more time to make these types of decisions, certainly, at a minimum, 30 days.
The standard response time is three to five business days. In this particular circumstance, employees were notified well in advance of the shift of operations to the S&DC and the intent to reassign employees. The preferencing had occurred in accordance with the standard response time.
The positions that were available for preferencing were within commuting distance and would not warrant any relocation. This move resulted in the supervisor moving from Tropical Reef to the S&DC, which was seven miles away. Considering the commuting distance and not warranting any relocation, the three to five business days to submit preference for a position is appropriate.
Agenda Item #7
NAPS asked for a briefing on the Optimized Collections process that is rolling out nationwide. Mike Melendrez, senior director, Surface Logistics, provided a briefing.
Mike Melendrez, senior director, Surface Logistics, provided a briefing.
Agenda Item #8
NAPS pointed out that, under the current S&DC process, postmasters who have carriers and clerks moved to a S&DC have been given a grace period whereupon they are told they will not be reassigned, transferred or have their position downgraded or reduced. NAPS agrees with this policy. However, NAPS requests this same guarantee be given to station managers who are faced with the loss of craft employees to a S&DC.
The manager positions that lost all deliveries to S&DCs currently are being evaluated. If NAPS has any basis to support this request, please send it as soon as possible for review and consideration.
Agenda Item #9
NAPS requested that the USPS use a standardized process for reassigning EAS employees from a losing delivery unit to a gaining S&DC based on the seniority date of the affected EAS employee. This would allow for a fair and recognized process, rather than a variety of processes being used in various parts of the country as reported by affected members in the Field.
NAPS provided an attachment that showed the process in Georgia. The EAS selections are made by some person or entity without any specific selection guidelines. This leaves the selection process open to bias.
NAPS’ allegation that different processes are used without any guidelines is unfounded. The following process of reassigning non-bargaining SCS employees has been used since the implementation of S&DCs and has been applied consistently. The Postal Service deems the method to be appropriate and fair:
Agenda Item #10
NAPS requested the USPS remove employee retention off NPA as a goal. EAS employees cannot entirely control whether an employee stays or not. EAS employees in the Field have reported circumstances when a new hire trains five days in a row with an on-the-job trainer, even after the employee goes to the carrier academy, and they still quit.
In many cases, much of the turnover can be traced to economic conditions, particularly because, oftentimes, the USPS pays new hires considerably less than other industries. NAPS understands the need to retain employees, but this indicator, which has a 5% impact to NPA, is not fair.
As discussed with NAPS in previous meetings and specifically the March 2023 consultative meeting, the retention metric no longer is used. Retention was a FY22 NPA goal. For FY23, the metric was changed to career and non-career separations. Detailed reasons for employees leaving are not recorded, but exit surveys are conducted.
Nature of Action (NOA) codes—which are resignations, separations, terminations, removals and retirements—are recorded. For NPA purposes, retirements, removals and separations for cause (charges pending/pre-appointment condition) are excluded. Also, employees who are hired, but ultimately have their hire Form 50 accession canceled, are not counted and do not negatively impact the separation rate.
Seasonal or Exception Period non-career employees are excluded from the separation calculation. In addition, pre-career employees separated for service break purposes do not count in the separation rate calculation.
Based on exit surveys provided by employees leaving the USPS and who responded to the survey, the major factors for leaving the organization revolve around work environment, supervision and work schedules which all are within our control.
Agenda Item #11
NAPS discussed that, in many cases, EAS employees have been detailed to the Headquarters TIAREAP process since January 2023. NAPS Headquarters has been told that many of these individuals did not qualify for a NPA pay increase for FY23. When PES entries were required, they were told they were not to enter the detail and, instead, put in their Form 50 position.
Those who mitigated with the district had their mitigation denied. NAPS requested information from the USPS as to why these EAS employees were denied a PFP raise based on their authorized Headquarters detail. NAPS also requested that individuals affected by this action have their 2023 NPA ratings recalculated, corrected and reflected in their NPA.
The HERO Performance Pilot can recognize detail assignments, but only to Form 50 or vacant positions. If a Field employee is given a Headquarters assignment and there is no vacant job, then the individual is assigned the scorecard based on their position of record, Form 50. Individuals were not denied a PFP award.
Agenda Item #12
NAPS requested that when town halls are scheduled based on USPS Headquarters initiatives under DFA, that local HR managers contact local NAPS representatives to include them in the town hall meetings in support of the process.
NAPS Headquarters is notified in advance with formal notifications concerning all USPS Headquarters initiatives that may impact non-bargaining employees. NAPS President Ivan D. Butts also has met with the PMG concerning these initiatives.
1727 King Street, Suite 400
Alexandria, VA 22314-2753
703-836-9660 (phone)
703-836-9665 (fax)
Website by Morweb.org
Privacy Policy Copyright 2023
