CAD g ~5 RECEIVEDREGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL

APR 20 1989In the Matter of the Arbitration ) GRIEVANT : JIM EDGEMON, NBABRANCH Nafanal AmiaUaa tetlerGmn

-Between- ) POST OFFICE :Pasco, Washington

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE )CASE NO: W4N-5R-C 32984

-And- )NALC CASE NO : 484

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, )

BEFORE: CARL B. A . LANGE III, Arbitrator

APPEARANCES :

For the U .S . Postal Service : THOMAS P . KINGSupervisor, Training4001 South Pine StreetTacoma, WA 98414-9404

For the Union: JIM WILLIAMSRegional Administrative AssistantP . 0 . Box 84386Vancouver, WA 98684-0386

Place of Hearing: 3500 West Court StreetPasco , Washington

Date of Hearing : January 31, 1989

AWARD :

The Pasco Post Office violated the National Agreement and theLocal Agreement by refusing to grant requests for Annual Leaveeven though the agreed upon quotas for choice and non-choiceperiods had not been filled . By way of remedy, the Pasco PostOffice is ordered to cease and desist from denying any requestfor Annual Leave as long as the applicable quota has not beenfilled . Further, any carrier who was denied Annual Leave betweenMay 1, 1986, and April 15, 1989, although slots were availablewithin the quota, shall be credited with Administrative LeaveTime in the amount of one hour for each hour that was denied .

(Background and Reasoning attached)

Date of Award: April 18

CARL B . A . LF(NGE III

BACKGROUND AND REASONING(Branch - Annual Leave Scheduling)

Pursuant to the National Collective Bargaining Agreement (Jt .Exhibit 1) between the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ("Service" or"Employer"), and the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS("NALC" or "Union"), the undersigned was selected from theWestern Region Regular Arbitration Panel to serve as thearbitrator in this matter .

This matter arises as the result of a 1986 change inoperating policy at the Pasco Post Office regarding the grantingof Annual Leave requests . The number of carriers eligible forAnnual Leave during choice and non-choice periods had been set at10 and 5 respectively . In 1986, the Postmaster determined thatrequests for Annual Leave could and would be denied based uponthe needs of the Service, even when the quotas had not beenfilled . The instant grievance was filed at Step 2 on July 26,1986, and was processed pursuant to the National Agreement .

An evidentiary hearing was held on January 31, 1989, at thePasco Post Office, 3500 West Court Street , Pasco, Washington .The Service was represented by Tom King , Supervisor of Training .The NALC was represented by Jim Williams , Regional AdministrativeAssistant . At the hearing the parties agreed that there were noissues of procedural or substantive arbitrability to be resolvedand that the matter was properly before the Arbitrator .Witnesses appearing before the arbitrator were duly sworn . Noofficial transcript of the hearing was made .

The Union argued that the issue should be stated as :

"Did Management violate Articles 3, 10, and30 of the National Agreement, Article 10 ofthe Local Memorandum, and the agreementstruck on January 11, 1984, when in May 1986the Post Master issued a policy which did notallow for the quotas during the Annual Leaveselection as established by the parties innegotiations?

"If so, what is the appropriate remedy?"

"If not, did Management violate a bindingpast practice when they changed the policy inMay 1986 concerning the quotas which had beenallowed in prior leave years?

"If so, what is the remedy?"

1

The Service suggested that the issue should be :

"Did Management violate Articles 10 .2,10 .3d4, and 10 .4d of the National Agreementand Articles 10 .5 and 10 .10 of the LocalMemorandum of Understanding by denying leaverequested by carriers when that leave wasrequested after the choice/non-choice sign-upperiod had closed?

"If so, what is the proper remedy?"

Based upon a review of the evidence and testimony, theundersigned determines that the issue should be stated as :

"Did the Pasco Post office violate theNational Agreement or the Local Memorandum ofUnderstanding by refusing to grant requestsfor Annual Leave that were made after theregular sign-up period, even though theagreed upon quotas had not been filled? Ifso, what is the appropriate remedy?"

During the course of the hearing, all parties were affordeda full and complete opportunity to be heard, to call, examine,and cross-examine witnesses, to develop arguments and to presentrelevant evidence . The Union made closing arguments on therecord . A post-hearing brief was filed by the Service . TheUnion subsequently filed a responsive brief . The matter wasdeemed submitted for decision as of March 8, 1989 .

The essence of the Union's argument is that the Postmasterchanged the rules regarding Annual Leave - including rules thathe or his designated representatives had worked out with theUnion . The "Leave" article of the Local MOU, cited above, hadbeen in effect, without change, since the early 1970's . InJanuary 1984, the quotas were raised to 10 for the choice periodand 5 for the non-choice period based on an agreement betweenLocal 1528 and the Postmaster (Jt . Exhibit 4) . At the same time,the parties agreed that the quotas could be exceeded if businessconditions allowed .

Prior to 1986, requests for Annual Leave were granted, up tothe stated quotas, whether the requests were made during or afterthe regular sign-up period . However, in early May 1986, justprior to the beginning of the choice period, the Postmasterdetermined and announced that even if the quota had not been met,all requests for Annual Leave would be considered based upon theneeds of the Service . The Union argues that the first 10 choiceperiod and the first 5 non-choice period Annual Leave slotsshould be allotted automatically, subject only to agreed-onlimitations in the National Agreement and Local Mou .

As to the remedy, the Union requests that the undersignedreinstate the pre-1986 practice of granting all Annual Leaverequests up to the applicable quota . Further, the Union asks

2

that each individual whose Annual Leave request was denied whenslots were available under the quota be paid Administrative Leavetime equal to the amount of requested Annual Leave .

The Service argues that there was no violation of either theNational Agreement or the Local MOU . Citing its obligation toprovide efficient and regular mail delivery, the Service arguesthat advance planning for staffing purposes is a necessity (seeOpening Argument) . More specifically, in its Post-Hearing Brief,the Service first argues that the negotiated April 1 deadline isthe major determinate of whether or not the quota would becompletely filled in any given week . Second, the Service arguesthat requests for "incidental leave" are not automaticallyapproved . Third, the Service has a past practice of disapprovingAnnual Leave requests when the quotas were met . Fourth, theJanuary 1984 Labor Management meeting set "objectives ortargets," not absolute numbers . Fifth, approval for Annual Leaverequests made outside of the regular sign-up period isdiscretionary, not mandatory . Finally, the Service objects tothe Union's proposed remedy on the basis that it had not beenrequested earlier in the grievance procedure .

Relevant Provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

The Agreement between the United States Postal Service andthe American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and the NationalAssociation of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO ("National Agreement"),entered into the record as it . Exhibit 1, provides :

"ARTICLE 3

"MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

"The Employer shall have the exclusive right,subject to the provisions of this Agreementand consistent with applicable laws andregulations :

"A. To direct employees of the Employer inthe performance of official duties ;

"B . To hire, promote, transfer, assign, andretain employees in positions within thePostal Service and to suspend, demote,discharge, or take other disciplinary actionagainst such employees ;

"C . To maintain the efficiency of theoperations entrusted to it ;

"D . To determine the methods, means, andpersonnel by which such operations are to beconducted ;

3

"E . To prescribe a uniform dress to be wornby letter carriers and other designatedemployees ; and

"F . To take whatever actions may benecessary to carry out its mission inemergency situations, i .e ., an unforeseencircumstance or a combination ofcircumstances which calls for immediateaction in a situation which is not expectedto be of a recurring nature .

"ARTICLE 10

LEAVE

"Section 1 . Funding

"The Employer shall continue funding theleave program so as to continue the currentleave earning level for the duration of thisAgreement .

"Section 2 . Leave Regulations

"The leave regulations in Subchapter 510 ofthe Employee and Labor Relations Manual,insofar as such regulations establish wages,hours and working conditions of employeescovered by this Agreement, shall remain ineffect for the life of this Agreement .

"[See Memo, page 183]

"Section 3 . Choice of Vacation Period

"A . It is agreed to establish a nationwideprogram for vacation planning for employeesin the regular work force with emphasis uponthe choice vacation period(s) or variationsthereof .

"B . Care shall be exercised to assure thatno employee is required to forfeit any partof such employee's annual leave .

"C . The parties agree that the duration ofthe choice vacation period(s) in all postalinstallations shall be determined pursuant tolocal implementation procedures .

4

"D . Annual leave shall be granted asfollows :

"1 . Employees who earn 13 days annual leaveper year shall be granted up to ten (10) daysof continuous annual leave during the choiceperiod . The number of days of annual leave,not to exceed ten (10), shall be at theoption of the employee .

"2 . Employees who earn 20 or 26 days annualleave per year shall be granted up to fifteen(15) days of continuous annual leave duringthe choice period . The number of days ofannual leave, not to exceed fifteen (15)shall be at the option of the employee .

"3 . The subject of whether an employee mayat the employee's option request two (2)selections during the choice period(s), inunits of either 5 or 10 working days, thetotal not to exceed the ten (10) or fifteen(15) days above, may be determined pursuantto local implementation procedures .

"4 . The remainder of the employee's annualleave may be granted at other times duringthe year, as requested by the employee .

"E . The vacation period shall start on thefirst day of the employee's basic work week .Exceptions may be granted by agreement amongthe employee, the Union representative andthe Employer .

"F . An employee who is called in for juryduty during the employee's scheduled choicevacation period or who attends a National,State, or Regional Convention (Assembly)during the choice vacation period is eligiblefor another available period provided thisdoes not deprive any other employee of firstchoice for scheduled vacation .

"Section 4 . Vacation Planning

"The following general rules shall beobserved in implementing the vacationplanning program :

"A . The Employer shall, no later thanNovember 1, publicize on bulletin boards andby other appropriate means the beginning dateof the new leave year, which shall begin with

5

the first day of the first full pay period ofthe calendar year .

"B . The installation head shall meet withthe representatives of the Unions to reviewlocal service needs as soon after January 1as practical . The installation head shallthen :

"1 . Determine the amount of annual leaveaccrued to each employee's credit includingthat for the current year and the amounthe/she expects to take in the current year .

"2 . Determine a final date for submission ofapplications for vacation period(s) of theemployee's choice during the choice vacationperiod(s) .

"3 . Provide official notice to each employeeof the vacation schedule approved for eachemployee .

"C . A procedure in each office forsubmission of applications for annual leavefor periods other than the choice period maybe established pursuant to the implementationprocedure above .

"D . All advance commitments for grantingannual leave must be honored except inserious emergency situations .

"Section 5 . Sick Leave

"The Employer agrees to continue theadministration of the present sick leaveprogram, which shall include the followingspecific items :

"A . Credit employees with sick leave asearned .

"B . Charge to annual leave or leave withoutpay (at employee's option) approved absencefor which employee has insufficient sickleave .

"C . Employee becoming ill while on annualleave may have leave charged to sick leaveupon request .

"D. Unit Charges for Sick Leave shall be inminimum units of less than one (1) hour .

6

"E . For periods of absence of three (3) daysor less, a supervisor may accept anemployee's certification as reason for anabsence .

"ARTICLE 15

"GRIEVANCE-ARBITRATION PROCEDURE

"Section 1 . Definition

"A grievance is defined as a dispute,difference, disagreement or complaint betweenthe parties related to wages, hours, andconditions of employment . A grievance shallinclude, but is not limited to, the complaintof an employee or of the Unions whichinvolves the interpretation, application of,or compliance with the provisions of thisAgreement or any local Memorandum ofUnderstanding not in conflict with thisAgreement .

"Section 4 . Arbitration

"A . General Provisions

" (6) All decisions of an arbitrator will befinal and binding . All decisions ofarbitrators shall be limited to the terms andprovisions of this Agreement, and in no eventmay the terms and provisions of thisAgreement be altered, amended, or modified byan arbitrator . . . .

"ARTICLE 30

"LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

" A. Presently effective local memoranda ofunderstanding not inconsistent or in conflictwith the 1984 National Agreement shall remainin effect during the term of this Agreementunless changed by mutual agreement pursuant

7

to the local implementation procedure setforth below .

"B . There shall be a 30-day period of localimplementation to commence April 1, 1985 onthe 22 specific items enumerated below,provided that no local memorandum ofunderstanding may be inconsistent with orvary the terms of the 1984 NationalAgreement .

"4 . Formulation of local leave program .

"5 . The duration of the choice vacationperiod(s) .

"6 . The determination of the beginning dayof an employee's vacation period .

"7 . Whether employees at their option mayrequest two selections during the choicevacation period, in units of either 5 or 10days .

"9 . Determination of the maximum number ofemployees who shall receive leave each weekduring the choice vacation period .

"10 . The issuance of official notices to eachemployee of the vacation schedule approvedfor such employee .

"11 . Determination of the date and means ofnotifying employees of the beginning of thenew leave year .

"12 . The procedures for submission ofapplications for annual leave during otherthan the choice vacation period .

"20 . The determination as to whether annualleave to attend Union activities requestedprior to determination of the choice vacationschedule is to be part of the total choicevacation plan .

8

"C . All proposals remaining in dispute maybe submitted to final and bindingarbitration, with the written authorizationof the national Union President . The requestfor arbitration must be submitted within 10days of the end of the local implementationperiod . However, where there is no agreementand the matter is not referred toarbitration, the provisions of the formerlocal memorandum of understanding shallapply, unless inconsistent with or inconflict with the 1984 National Agreement .

"[see Memo , page 1941

"D. An alleged violation of the terms of amemorandum of understanding shall be subjectto the grievance-arbitration procedure .

Relevant Provisions of the Local Memorandum of Understanding .

The Local Memorandum of Understanding ("Local MOU") betweenTri-Cities Branch 1528 and the United States Postal ServicePasco, Washington (it . Exhibit 3) provides at Article X :

"ARTICLE X - LEAVE

"Section 1 - Administration of the leaveplanning shall be done by management inaccordance with the negotiated sections ofArticle 10 of the local memo ; such includesposting on leave chart during choice period .

"Section 2 - Annual leave shall be chosen andposted in choice period by seniority .

"Section 3 - Annual leave will begin onMonday and conclude on Sunday .

"Section 4 - A letter carrier may combine hislong weekend with his annual leave .

"Section 5 - Annual leave will be granted inincrements of hours and days . (This item isin contention and has been certified toarbitration by the Union . Accordingly, itwill remain effective until an arbitrationdecision is rendered .)

"Section 6 - Any carrier eligible for annualleave during the choice period must submithis first choice no later than April 1st ofthat leave year .

9

"Section 7 - Carriers will submit leaveapplications during choice period intriplicate . The Union representative andCarrier Foreman will initial all three formsand submit the original to the CarrierForeman, retain the duplicate, and return thetriplicate to the carrier .

"Section 8 - Any carrier that [sic] iseligible for thirteen (13) days annual leaveis entitled to ten (10) days of continuousleave during choice period .

"Section 9 - Any carrier that [sic] iseligible for twenty (20) or more days annualleave per year is entitled to fifteen (15)days of continuous leave time during choiceperiod. In the event the carrier choosesonly ten (10) days he may have a secondchoice of five (5) days .

"Section 10 - Carriers shall be allowed tosign for the remainder of their annual leaveat any other times of the year on a firstcome, first served basis except the carrierwhose scheduled days off falls on a holidaywill have preference to that day off over andabove any annual leave of less than one weekexcept emergency leave . If any dispute onwho gets the day off, it shall be determinedby seniority on a rotating basis .

"Section 11 - The number of carriers grantedannual leave during the choice period shallbe determined by the maximum number of weeksnecessary to grant each carrier leave he iseligible for during choice period, [sic] (butnot to be less than the previous year .)

"Section 12 - Choice vacation period shall befor twenty-three (23) weeks beginning on the20th of May 1982 and extending through the27th of October 1982 . Choice leave periodfor 1983 shall begin on May 19th and concludeon October 26th .

"Section 13 - Variations may be made in theagreement, when possible, to allow a carrierextra time off in choice period for anextended trip when this does not deprive anyother carrier of his first choice duringchoice leave period .

10

"Section 14 - Any carrier who signs forannual leave during choice period, and doesnot want same, shall give one week notice tothe supervisor and Union who will then postthe leave period, to be bid by seniority .Any carrier who would have more than hisallotted time in the choice period, shall notbe permitted to bid, unless no other bids arereceived . Limited trading within the choiceperiod will be allowed .

"Section 15 - In the event the carrierneglects to notify the supervisor and UnionSteward of his intention to give up his leaveduring the choice period, the carrier shallsign the leave list last the following year .In case a carrier's leave during the choiceperiod must be given up because of lastmoment illness, this provision will notprevail .

"Section 16 - The week of the carrier's StateConvention shall be served for conventiondelegates . Convention week is not a part ofchoice period . If State Convention date isscheduled during choice period, the choiceperiod shall be reduced one week . The numberof carriers allowed off shall be the same asallowed off during choice period .

"Section 17 - Jury duty will not beconsidered as a choice selection duringchoice period .

"Section 18 - Military leave taken duringchoice period will not be considered one ofcarrier's choice selection .

"Section 19 - Applications for leave otherthan the choice period shall be made induplicate . Said leave shall be approved ordisapproved within seven (7) days afterfiling of the leave application and theduplicate copy returned to the carriershowing action taken and bearing signature ofcarrier foreman .

"Section 20 - Request by carriers foremergency leave may be granted by the CarrierForeman . If not granted, must be acted uponby the installation head if on duty or at hisearliest opportunity ."

1 1

In contract interpretation cases, the first matter to bedetermined is whether the language of the pertinent document isclear and unambiguous or unclear and/or ambiguous . If thelanguage is clear and unambiguous, it will be applied to thedispute without further analysis . The language would beconsidered unclear and/or ambiguous if the interpretations urgedby both parties were equally capable of being read into theprovision in question . In such an instance, either argumentcould be supported in the context of the complete agreement onthe issue . If the language could reasonably support more thanone interpretation, then other factors, including bargaininghistory and past application of the provisions in question, wouldhave to be reviewed in order to ascertain the appropriate andintended meaning of the particular provisions .

In the view of the undersigned, an analysis of the genesisand application of Articles 10 and 30 of the National Agreementis unnecessary . For a detailed analysis, see NationalArbitration case nos . HlC-NA-C 59 and H1C-NA-C 61 (1986) decidedby Arbitrator Richard Mittenthal . Nonetheless, certain passagesin the Mittenthal decision bear repeating in that they relatedirectly to the instant matter . In a discussion of the AnnualLeave process at pages 6 and 7, Arbitrator Mittenthal states :

"At the local level, the parties are expectedto define the 'choice vacation period' anddetermine the 'maximum number of employeeswho shall receive leave each week during thechoice vacation period .' Employees then bidfor the leave weeks they want during thischoice period . If the bids for a given weekare greater than the maximum number ofemployees permitted to be off, some requestsmust be denied . . . .

"These arrangements, however, do not disposeof all of the annual leave earned . . . .

"This subject has been addressed in thousandsof LMU . One type of clause provides for theselection of leave time during non-choicevacation periods . . . . Employees ordinarilybid for non-choice periods in the same waythey bid for choice periods .

"Another type of clause provides for theselection of incidental leave . Such a clauserecognizes that people may experience, forpersonal reasons, an unanticipated need forleave time . . . . A LMU allows employees toobtain such leave during the year even thoughthe bidding period has passed . There aretypically two conditions to any suchincidental leave : (1) the employee must give

12

supervision sufficient notice of his requestand (2) the granting of the request must notresult in exceeding the ceiling the LMUplaces on the number of employees allowed tobe off in a given week ." (Emphasis inoriginal .)

Further, at pages 12 and 13, Arbitrator Mittenthal writes :

"Hence, when Article 30 B 4 made 'formulationof local leave program' a subject for localimplementation, these words must have beenintended to have a broad reach . Localparties were authorized to deal with leave atany time during the year, within or outsidethe choice period . Local parties wereauthorized to deal with 'variations' as well .Their 'formulation' can make it mandatory onManagement to grant leave at a certain timeduring the choice period . . . . That beingso, it is difficult to believe their'formulation' could not likewise make itmandatory on Management to grant leave at acertain time during the non-choice period .[footnote : Any such mandatory arrangement ina LMU would of course be subject to Article10, Section 4D . . .1 That should beespecially true where the LMU clause permitsa lesser percentage of employees to be offduring the non-choice period .

"Moreover, one cannot ignore the fact thatthousands of LMU clauses have been negotiatedover the years . They have routinely requiredManagement to grant leave during non-choiceperiods (or incidental leave) under certainconditions . . . .

"It may be that a particular LMU clause will,due to the poor judgment of the negotiators,permit too many employees to be on leave atone time or permit employees to take leave ontoo short a notice . It may be that thesearrangements will cause inefficiencies . . . .It cannot be said, on the present state ofthe record, that all (or most) LMU clauses onleave during non-choice periods (orincidental leave) must necessarily causeinefficiency . . . ." (Emphasis in original .)

The Service's refusal to grant Annual Leave requests eitherinside or outside of the choice vacation period when the

13

respective quotas have not been filled violates the NationalAgreement as interpreted by Arbitrator Mittenthal above .Further, to the extent that unfilled quota slots are not filledon request , Section 11 of Article X of the Local MOU is alsoviolated in that the number of carriers granted Annual Leave in1986 ( and subsequent years ) has been reduced . Additionally, theeffect of the denials renders Sections X and XIV of the Local MOUessentially useless .

Finally, the record of the January 11, 1984, "NALC LABORMANAGEMENT MEETING" states in pertinent part :

" AGENDA ITEMS :

"l . Vacations were discussed .

"b . For 1984, ten will be allowed off duringprime time, and five will be allowed offoutside of prime time . Management willconsider applications in excess of the quotason an individual basis when businessconditions are favorable .

The terms "prime time" and "outside of prime time" mean the sameas choice and non-choice in the context of designating vacationperiods . The numbers set forth in item l .b . above constituted anincrease over the prior years' quotas . Following this LaborManagement meeting, the 1984 vacation schedules were posted andfilled based upon the Local MOU process . The same process wasutilized in 1985 . In practice, of the nearly 60 denials ofAnnual Leave requests over the 2-year period, not one request wasdenied where there was an open slot within the quota and, not onerequest was denied on the basis of "the needs of the Service ."In fact, 80 percent of the denials were based on the quotas beingat the maximum (Union Exhibits 2 and 3) . For 1983, the number ofquota-based denials was nearly 90 percent (Union Exhibit 1) .Thus, in 1984 and 1985, the phrase "will be allowed off" did notmean "may be allowed off" or "might be allowed off," as it wasinterpreted by the Service to mean "will be allowed off" or"shall be allowed off ." The refusal to automatically grantAnnual Leave requests up to the 1984 quota numbers and theexpansion of the policy on the reasons for the denial of AnnualLeave requests clearly violated the 1984 Labor Management accordmade with Branch 1528 .

The undersigned considered several possible remedies for theviolations set forth above . Throughout the grievance procedure,the Union requested only reinstitution of the full complement of10 off during the choice period and 5 off during the non-choiceperiod . In certain circumstances, the undersigned has required a

1 4

restoration to the status quo ante without additionalcompensation or other make-whole remedy . That restoration isappropriate in this matter and is so ordered .

In this matter, however, the undersigned has determined toaugment the remedy with an award of Administrative Leave time toeach affected employee . First, it is necessary to answer theService's objection to this remedy, requested by the Union at thearbitration hearing . Arbitrator Irvin Sobel addressed the issuein Regional Case No . S4N-3R-D 35445 (1987) where he stated :

"Given the right of the arbitrator incircumstances when a grievance is sustained,to fashion a remedy appropriate to making thegrievant "whole" this arbitrator cannotacquiesce to the able Employer advocate'scontention, that he is bounded by and limitedto the Union's requested "Corrective Action ."The arbitrator does not have to take the lessthan precise verbiage of a frequentlyinexperienced and sometimes technicallyunschooled Union Steward as gospel, eitherwhen that officer requests, far more than thegrievant (or Union) is entitled to, or as inthis comparatively rare instance, too little .In fact, arbitrators revise or modify (Union)requests far more often in a downward ratherthan an upward direction . . . . Thus, theEmployer's attempt to limit the remedy ongrounds of the arbitrator's restrictedauthority, is hereby rejected ."

Arbitrator Sobel's reasoning and conclusions are appropriate forapplication in the instant matter .

In Regional Case No . W4N-5R-C 38982, Arbitrator William E .Rentfro decided a strikingly similar issue in a case involvingthe Kent, Washington, Post Office . In that matter, one employeewas improperly denied Annual Leave for two days . ArbitratorRentfro stated :

"It is the conclusion of the Arbitrator thatManagement ignored valid and clear-cutrequirements of the Local Agreement when itarbitrarily denied Grievant annualleave . . . . It is undisputed thatGrievant's request was timely and properlysubmitted and well within the identified. . . quota . . . Grievant is entitled to 16hours of administrative leave, independent ofhis annual leave balance and contractualquotas, to be taken at his convenience . Itis hoped that he remedy herein ordered willpoint up the flagrant nature of the violation

15

involved and encourage Management to adhereto contractual obligations in the future ."

Since the instant matter involved the entire carrier complementat Pasco and not just one person, the contract violations warranta remedy at least equal to that assessed against the Kent PostOffice . Thus, each carrier who was improperly denied AnnualLeave, as set forth above, shall be credited with AdministrativeLeave time equal to the amount of Annual Leave that wasoriginally requested .

Respectfully submitted,

16