L.M.O.U.'s

Mojave


Ridgecrest


Rosamond


Tehachapi


L.M.O.U.

ARTICLE 30 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

A. Presently effective local memoranda of understanding not inconsistent or in conflict with the 2000 National Agreement shall remain in effect during the term of this Agreement unless changed by mutual agreement pursuant to the local implementation procedure set forth below or, as a result of an arbitration award or settlement arising from either party’s impasse of an item from the presently effective local memorandum of understanding.

B. There shall be a 30 consecutive day period of local implementation which shall occur within a period of 60 days commencing April 1, 2002 on the 22 specific items enumerated below, provided that no local memorandum of understanding may be inconsistent with or vary the terms of the 2000 National Agreement:


  1. Additional or longer wash-up periods.

  2. The establishment of a regular work week of five days with either fixed or rotating days off.

  3. Guidelines for the curtailment or termination of postal operations to conform to orders of local authorities or as local conditions warrant because of emergency conditions.

  4. Formulation of local leave program.

  5. The duration of the choice vacation period(s).

  6. The determination of the beginning day of an employee’s vacation period.

  7. Whether employees at their option may request two selections during the choice vacation period, in units of either 5 or 10 days.

  8. Whether jury duty and attendance at National or State Conventions shall be charged to the choice vacation period.

  9. Determination of the maximum number of employees who shall receive leave each week during the choice vacation period.

  10. The issuance of official notices to each employee of the vacation schedule approved for such employee.

  11. Determination of the date and means of notifying employees of the beginning of the new leave year.

  12. The procedures for submission of applications for annual leave during other than the choice vacation period.

  13. The method of selecting employees to work on a holiday.

  14. Whether “Overtime Desired” lists in Article 8 shall be by section and/or tour.

  15. The number of light duty assignments within each craft or occupational group to be reserved for temporary or permanent light duty assignment.

  16. The method to be used in reserving light duty assignments so that no regularly assigned member of the regular work force will be adversely affected.

  17. The identification of assignments that are to be considered light duty within each craft represented in the office.

  18. The identification of assignments comprising a section, when it is proposed to reassign within an installation employees excess to the needs of a section.

  19. The assignment of employee parking spaces.

  20. The determination as to whether annual leave to attend Union activities requested prior to determination of the choice vacation schedule is to be part of the total choice vacation plan.

  21. Those other items which are subject to local negotiations as provided in the craft provisions of this Agreement.

  22. Local implementation of this Agreement relating to seniority, reassignments and posting.

C. All proposals remaining in dispute may be submitted to final and binding arbitration, with the written authorization of the national Union President or the Vice- President, Labor Relations. The request for arbitration must be submitted in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Local Implementation. However, where there is no agreement and the matter is not referred to arbitration, the provisions of the former local memorandum of understanding shall apply. The Employer may challenge a provision(s) of a local memorandum of understanding on “inconsistent or in conflict” grounds only by making a reasonable claim during the local implementation process that a provision(s) of a local memorandum of understanding is inconsistent or in conflict with new or amended provisions of the current National Agreement that did not exist in the previous National Agreement, or with provisions that have been amended subsequent to the effective date of the previous National Agreement. If local management refuses to abide by a local memorandum of understanding on “inconsistent or in conflict” grounds and an arbitrator subsequently finds that local management had no reasonable basis for its claim, the arbitrator is empowered to issue an appropriate remedy. [see Memo, Page 322]

D. In the event of a mid-term change or addition in the National Agreement, local management may challenge a provision(s) of a local memorandum of understanding subsequent to the local implementation period, but only by making a reasonable claim that a provision(s) of a local memorandum of understanding is inconsistent or in conflict with the changed provision(s) of the National Agreement. The challenged provision(s) declared to be inconsistent or in conflict with the National Agreement shall remain in effect for 120 days from the date on which the Union is notified in writing of management’s challenge or the date of an arbitrator’s award dealing with management’s challenge, whichever is sooner.

E. An alleged violation of the terms of a memorandum of understanding shall be subject to the grievance-arbitration procedure.

F. When installations are consolidated or when a new installation is established, the parties shall conduct a thirty (30) day period of local implementation, pursuant to Section B. All proposals remaining in dispute may be submitted to final and binding arbitration, with the written authorization of the national Union President or the Vice-President, Labor Relations. The request for arbitration must be submitted within 10 days of the end of the local implementation period.

G. Where the Postal Service, pursuant to Section C, submits a proposal remaining in dispute to arbitration, which proposal seeks to change a presently-effective Local Memorandum of Understanding, the Postal Service shall have the burden of establishing that continuation of the existing provision would represent an unreasonable burden to the USPS.