The Aug. 10 consultative meeting was held in conjunction with the 2024 National Convention; all board members were present. Representing the Postal Service were Bruce Nicholson, James Timmons and Paulita Wimbush, USPS Labor Relations Policies & Programs.
Agenda Item #1
NAPS contends the Akron, OH, postmaster regularly is changing EAS schedules, refusing to pay code 35 time to supervisors, attempting to eliminate EAS positions, not properly posting EAS positions’ hours of work and more. All this, while, at the same time, detailing a person in an MCSO position for which Akron, as a Level-24, does not qualify. These issues have been raised to Ohio 1 District Manager Susan Taylor, as well as former Central Area Vice President Eric Henry. Yet there has been no effort to control the Akron postmaster or stop this type of behavior.
NAPS requested that, if the Ohio 1 District or Central Area is unwilling or unable to ensure the Akron postmaster follows postal regulations and postal directives on EAS schedule changes, details to unauthorized positions or proper EAS staffing and cease this type of psychologically aggressive behavior, that Postal Headquarters take control of these matters.
Alleged violations of employment policies should be sent to Human Resources for the appropriate district. Supervisors have the option to appeal actions in accordance with Employee and Labor Relations Manual, Section 650, Nonbargaining, Disciplinary, Grievance, and Appeal Procedures.
Agenda Item #2
NAPS asked what the process is when hiring EAS positions from outside the Postal Service. Is any consideration given to EAS employees who currently work in that department in terms of pay so it stays consistent? NAPS has been made aware that, on certain occasions, outside hires are brought into Headquarters EAS positions and given salaries higher than the EAS employees who currently work in that department and, in some cases, have for many years. This creates discord in that department. What is the basis for these salary decisions?
Recruitment uses market data to make initial salary offers for external hires and has authorization to hire up to the midpoint of the salary schedule. If the selecting official and vice president over the position would like to offer a salary above the midpoint, the request must be supported by the vice president and Executive Leadership Team before coming to Compensation for review.
Handbook EL-312
233.3 External Recruitment - Competitive and Noncompetitive 233.31 External Recruitment in General
When the appointing official cannot fill a vacancy through the internal placement of employees, the appointing official can post the vacancy externally on http://about. usps.com/careers/welcome.htm (see Chapter 4).
Applications are accepted and processed through the Postal Service’s online application management system. In addition, appointing officials:
a. May use additional recruitment activities to attract qualified applicants.
b. May fill bargaining and non-bargaining vacancies using the noncompetitive sources listed in 233.33 through 233.39, as appropriate and in accordance with the applicable national agreement.
233.32 Competitive Appointment
A competitive appointment is when a selection is made from applicants who respond to an announcement posted on http://about.usps.com/careers/welcome.htm. Current career postal employees, regardless of position or location, are ineligible for selection for externally announced vacancies. Current noncareer employees are eligible to apply and compete for externally announced vacancies.
Agenda Item #3
NAPS discussed that the Chief Retail Delivery Office requires each post office for each day of the week to have an entry for every employee working their nonscheduled day. This also must be done by each function for each day—clerks, city carriers, rural carriers, mail handlers, custodians, etc. Workhours must be projected for each day of the week ahead of time, which can change based on fluctuations in volumes and staffing.
Currently, the program works intermittently. EAS employees are to make entries on Form 50s, but, often, entries cannot be made—even after an update was made in RADAR to ensure the level of access was corrected.
The report could be consolidated into total SDO requests per day without entering each individual name. Additionally, why not just have how many total SDOs for all crafts the office is requesting? There is no need to break this down to such a level.
While it is understandable to control the SDO and overtime usage, the budget and DWP matrix would reflect overtime usage. If offices are using too much overtime, the best way to control it would be at the MPOO level, reviewing reports that already populate this data on a daily/weekly basis. The areas send out SDO usage reports daily, as well. Different crafts have different questions to answer.
There is no value to this and is very time-consuming for offices short-staffed with many vacancies. EAS employees have enough reports, telecons and calls, not to mention excessive stress created by these redundant mechanisms. NAPS asked what the value is of this daily SDO usage report and that it be stopped until a less-cumbersome and efficient report can be used.
We are not aware of a “SDO usage report” to which you are referring or any requirement from CRDO as referenced.
Agenda Item #4
NAPS contended that, in the field, administrative offices must answer C360 cases. There are numerous cases that cannot be answered based on parcels being in transit from plants and thus delayed. Customers do not want to hear their package is delayed; the USPS cannot provide the date of delivery until the package arrives in the office. Customers want their packages as expected.
There are telecons to explain what is being done to improve scores; EAS employees are being held accountable for failures not within their control. This also is part of NPA. The goal currently is 46%; nationally, the Postal Service is at 46.54%, with 995,815 responses. That is not the number of cases; these just are responses.
NAPS requested the Postal Service improves this process and relieves EAS employees in the field of accountability for scores not within their line of control.
We are asking the customer to tell us how the C360 user(s) who worked on their Service Request provided the assistance needed. The answer is directly influenced by the way the C360 user(s) assisted the customer. Did they empathize with the customer and apologize for the situation or brush them off as
“not my problem?”
Did they provide communication and updates to the customer throughout the process? Did they ensure the Service Request was not closed prematurely, giving the appropriate time for the matter to be investigated and resolved?
If, ultimately, the package was not found, did the LPO C360 user(s) involved provide the customer clear guidance on how to file a claim, open a Missing Mail Search (where applicable) or advise the customer to contact the sender to let them know if an uninsured package was never received? And throughout all this process, did they maintain a kind, respectful attitude in their attempts to assist the customer? All those actions are what influences a customer’s perception of the quality of service provided to them during the investigation, handling and resolution of their Service Request. Even when bad news is the only news we have to provide the customer, when provided in an empathetic way with clear communication that shows the customer we did everything we could to assist them, we see positive responses to the OSAT question.
Concerning inquiries on packages that have not yet reached the delivery unit, we currently are developing a new process for handling those inquiries. Once the full details of this strategy are finalized, we will share that information with NAPS.
Agenda Item #5
NAPS has offered suggestions that could improve efficiency in city carrier operations. NAPS asked if in the next NALC contract, can the USPS establish a pace carriers must walk? Paces per minute should be measured by how many steps are taken in10 seconds and multiplied by 6. Currently, supervisors cannot give expectations on paces per minute.
The NALC is telling carriers they do not have to walk fast and can slow down and there is nothing management can do about it. This mindset is costing the Postal Service money. The 18-letters-per-minute and 8-flats-per-minute casing standard is antiquated and needs to change, as well. Instead of 18-8, it should be catered to the mail volume as cased mail continues to decline.
The new formula should be more like 25-25. This will get carriers out of the office faster and, coupled with the paces per minute, make city delivery more efficient and improve NPA scores for customer service.
Holding carriers to a minimum time standard alone does not improve efficiency or prevent supervisors from giving expectations. It is the carrier’s responsibility to notify the supervisor if that expectation cannot be met by submitting a PS Form 3996.
Supervisors should identify any time-wasting practices, specifically if it’s determined that a carrier is not meeting minimal acceptable performance standards due to unsatisfactory effort. Corrective action should not be issued based solely on not meeting minimum work standards:
“M-39, 242.332 - No carrier shall be disciplined for failure to meet standards, except in cases of unsatisfactory effort which must be based on documented, unacceptable conduct that led to the carrier’s failure to meet office standards.”
District Labor Relations should be contacted for advice in these circumstances. It would be inappropriate to discuss changing time standards in this forum as the USPS and NALC currently are in contract negotiations.
Agenda Item #6
NAPS asked to partner with the USPS to develop an improved PS Form 150 process; specifically, the Zone of Tolerance and the two-year waiting period for most offices to get an upgrade. NAPS provided the June 2024 Form 150 as a baseline for improving this upgrade process.
We can engage with NAPS on a work team. If NAPS has any proposals, send them as soon as possible for review and consideration.
Agenda Item #7
NAPS brought back an ongoing issue—specifically, the lack of adequate response time to NAPS’ requests for information or documentation through the Central Area Labor Relations department. NAPS Central Region Vice President Craig Johnson recently has made several requests for information regarding cases in his NAPS region. He has received slow or no responses from Central Area Labor.
He has received no response from the District and Central Area regarding an issue out of Michigan. When will this issue be resolved so important case information can be processed and resolved timely by NAPS leaders who work with Central Area Labor Relations?
Procedures and the name of individuals to contact for requests for information regarding specific disciplinary actions are included among the proposed action.
Agenda Item #8
NAPS previously brought to the table VMF manager levels and was told the Postal Service was waiting for new vehicles to arrive before adjusting VMF manager levels. The NGDV and Ford E-Transits are arriving. A VMF manager currently has approximately 900 units; top EAS-19 pay is $104,190 per year. When will the USPS rightsize the pay and levels for VMF managers?
A proposal is under development to modify the VMF workload model and apply it nationally. Once approved, the proposal will be provided to the management associations to begin the consultation process.
Agenda Item #9
NAPS asked when a staffing model will be available for S&DC managers. For example, a station manager who had a unit with a window operation and 32 routes could be an EAS-21. Now, that manager may be overseeing 150 routes. Many station managers moved into S&DCs are in limbo. How is NPA going to be determined for EAS employees who have been put into S&DCs, especially station managers?
Organization Design is evaluating the Customer Service manager workload model to account for S&DC operations. Once completed, and if there are any changes, a proposal will be provided for feedback. Each employee is linked to a specific NPA scorecard and can be found in the Performance Evaluation System (PES). Monthly and end-of-year information can be found on the Blue Page’s NPA site.
Agenda Item #10
NAPS discussed that the functional effectiveness scorecard currently has a CSV/SOV goal that cannot be achieved in overstaffed offices. Therefore, this situation is preventing EAS employees from achieving the possibility of 100% of their NPA goals. When a goal is not achievable through no fault of the office, this means the individual in the office can, at best, expect to achieve less of the full score/percentage of their NPA goals, limiting that individual’s ability to achieve 100% of their NPA goals.
A solution would be to give these offices the average combined score from their district or provide another goal to allow the EAS employee to achieve the potential 100% of all goals combined. NAPS requested the Postal Service make this change for these types of offices.
These offices should request a Function-4 Review. If the Function-4 Review determines the office is “over staffed,” then it is the responsibility of local management to adjust staffing accordingly. Whether that is posting bids where vacancies exist, reverting vacancies or excessing where overstaffing has been identified.
Categories: The Postal Supervisor
