On this Page
Air Mail Centers & Facilities
USPS Agrees to Cancel Hallmark Retail Program
CRAFT JURISDICTION ON THE AUTOMATED PACKAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM (APPS)
CRAFT JURISDICTION AT THE PMPCs THAT ARE CONVERTED TO L&DCS
To Whom It May Concern,
(posted 11/9/05)
For over 30 years there has been a USPS presence at Logan International
Airport. Between 12/11/05 & 12/31/05 there will no longer be an Air Mail
Center. There will be trailers set up for stamp purchases, package mailing
& post office boxes.
Initially, Washington D.C. decided to close all the Air Mail Facilities &
Air Mail Centers (AMFs & AMCs) across the United States & incorporate the
work into other facilities. Due to some union issues, it was determined
that proper protocol was not followed & grievances were subsequently filed.
The AMCs & AMFs would remain open until the matter was settled between the
union & Postal Management. However, Boston's AMC is still closing.
One reason given to the once 200 employees working during the 24/7
operations is that our building lease with MassPort will expire on 12/31/05.
To extend the lease, the rental amount would be prohibitive. Supposedly
there is no property within the airport, or close-by, that could accommodate
us at a reasonable rent.
Instead of the postal workers, Worldwide Flight Services will be handling
the mail. The contract award is over 3 million dollars.
Is it because of a new runway plan, Runway 14/32? Or is it because the
Postal Service is claiming that a decision to subcontract our work was
declared due to the inability to find another location for the AMC?
A solicitation went
out for bid on 9/23/05. See below :
A 'phase-in' of operations
began this month. All mailhandlers' operations have been subcontracted.
First Class Mail will be handled by Worldwide Flight Services. Is this a
portent of things to come? Now the Boston AMC, the nation's AMCs & AMFs
later?
Our union assures us that through the grievance/arbitration process our work
at the AMC Boston will be restored. See the attachment at:
http://www.npmhul301.org/article.php?scid=30&did=184&PHPSESSID=764c948aa66dc4
Sincerely,
The Mailhandlers & Clerks of the Boston AMC.
'U.S.
Postal Service: The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing
Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and
Accountability' which was released on May 9, 2005.
Number
of plans and annexes as of Sept. 2004
Boston Terminal Handling Services of US Mail
|
posted Feb. 25, 2005
In a notice dated Nov. 10, 2004, the USPS advised the APWU that in conjunction with a nationwide review of Air Mail Facilities and Air Mail Centers, operations at AMFs, AMCs, and Airfield Transfer Offices will be standardized.
All piece distribution, mail assignment, and opening activities will be relocated to the appropriate processing and distribution center or other postal facility, the notice says, and air mail facilities will be returned to their core processes. Any impact to staffing will be addressed at the district and area level, within the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
A list of AMCs slated for review is attached.
A letter dated Feb. 8, 2005, from Clerk Craft Director Jim McCarthy provides additional information. Activities that should remain at the AMFs, AMCs, and ATOs are:
-
Tender and receipt of mail;
-
Ramp activities;
-
Retail (where applicable);
-
Remaining Postal Vehicle Service (PVS) runs.
Whether the operation is a facility or stand-alone installation will determine the application of Article 12, should excessing and/or reassignments become necessary.
November 10, 2004
Mr. William Burrus
President
American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO
1300 L Street, NW
Washington,DC 20005-4304
Dear Bill:,
This is to advise you that in association with the review of Air Mail Facilities (AMF and Air Mail Centers (AMC) nationwide, operations at AMC/AMF/ATO’s will be standardized.
All piece distribution, mail assignment, and opening unit activities will be relocated to the appropriate processing and distribution center or other postal ’facility off airport. The AMC/AMF/ATO’s will be returned to their core processes. ,
Any Impacts to staffing will be addressed at the district and area levels and will be handled within the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
We will provide additional Information as it becomes available.
Should you have any questions related to this matter, you may contact Pam Molloy at
202-268-7488.
notice dated Nov. 10, 2004, [PDF]
From the Office of JAMES P. McCARTHY
February 8, 2005
TO:
Local Presidents
National Business Agents
Regional Coordinators
SUBJECT:
RE: AMC/AMF/ATOs
Attached for your information is a notice to the APWU regarding changes af the AMC/AMF/AIOs.
Also enclosed is a list of the AMCs that are being reviewed at this time.
As the letter to President Burrus states, the intent of the service is to remove all mail processing functions from the AMCs and return them to the P&Ds.
Whether this will happen in every site and if so when, is yet to be determined.
What should remain are the:
1. tender and receipt of mail
2. ramp activities
3. retail (where applicable)
4. remaining PVS shuttle runs
Depending on the status of the AMC, for contract administration purpose, whether it’s a facility or stand-alone installation, will determine the application of Article 12 if necessary.
Above and beyond the movement of mail processing back to the plants, there may be some Article 32 issues that may develop as well as impact on other crafts.
If you should have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to contact your NBA and/or Coordinator.
Burrus Update #14-2004
Sept. 10, 2004
USPS Agrees to Cancel Hallmark Program
As I announced at the APWU national convention, the Postal Service has agreed to end a pilot program with Hallmark that permitted the card and gift store corporation to perform retail postal services. In a Sept. 10, 2004, letter the USPS vice president for Labor Relations formally notified the APWU that it would end the pilot and would not proceed with the Hallmark Gold Crown initiative at this time.
This is a significant accomplishment for the APWU. Hallmark and the USPS had announced an arrangement under which 972 Hallmark Gold Crown Stores would sell stamps and accept mail.
On May 10, 2004, I wrote to Hallmark’s chief executive officer, Donald J. Hall Jr., expressing the union’s concerns about the pilot program, and asked that he reconsider the company’s decision to participate. I told him about the pride postal workers take in the service they provide to the American people, and of the extensive training retail clerks receive. I also reminded him that when Sears embarked on a similar plan in 1989, the APWU responded with calls for a boycott, and the program was discontinued.
Although postage stamps have been available in drug stores, contract stations, and numerous other commercial establishments for many years, accepting letters and parcels over the counter is a different matter. The Hallmark program would have expanded private postal services to a new level.
In a May 27, 2004, response to my letter, Hallmark’s CEO expressed surprise at our concerns, and said he had contacted postal officials to address them.
Today’s letter from the USPS confirms that the program will not move forward.
William Burrus
President
TO: NATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE
FROM: JIM MCCARTHY, CLERK CRAFT DIRECTOR, APWU
DATE: JUNE 18, 2004
SUBJECT: CRAFT JURISDICTION ON THE AUTOMATED PACKAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM (APPS)
The American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, submits the following dispute to the National Dispute Resolution Committee.
By letter dated 6/2/04 the Postal Service has advised the APWU, it is assigning the craft jurisdiction of the work to be performed on the Automated Package Processing System (APPS) to the mailhandler craft.
The APWU believes the issue is: Is the USPS’s decision to assign the work performed on the APPS machine in violation of the National Agreement, RI-399 and the historical application of jurisdictional rules of the parties? Is so, what is the remedy?
The APWU maintains the APPS is involved in mail processing and/or the distribution of mail and is the work of the clerk craft. All mail processing and/or distribution of mail on automated equipment is the work of the clerk craft.
In addition, the wage level of the position assigned to operate this machine (whether an existing position description or one which is newly created under Article 1, Section 5) is not a proper issue for resolution by the NDRC.
Jurisdiction Over APPS Awarded to Mail Handlers
TO: NATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE
FROM: JIM MCCARTHY, CLERK CRAFT DIRECTOR, APWU
DATE: JUNE 18, 2004
SUBJECT: CRAFT JURISDICTION AT THE PMPCs THAT ARE CONVERTED TO L&DCS
The American Postal Workers Union, AFL CIO, submits the following dispute to the National Dispute Resolution Committee.
By letter dated October 10, 2003, Clerk Division Director James P. McCarthy sent an inquiry to Pat Heath of the Postal Service concerning the Postal Service’s position on craft assignments when former Priority Mail Processing Centers (“PMPCs”) were converted to Logistics and Distribution ( L&DCs ). A copy of that letter is attached. By letter April 12, 2004 (received by the Clerk Division on April 22, 2004), the Postal Service’s Manager of Contract Administration, John W. Dockins, replied that the Postal Service disagreed with the APWU’s position that a new inventory in accordance with the April 16, 1992, memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) was required at the L&DCs. According to the Postal Service, the creation of“an L&DC does not trigger the ‘new and consolidated facility’ section of the MOU” because the creation of an L&DC is not “an operational change which would trigger such an inventory under the MOU.” A copy of that letter is also attached.
The APWU believes the issue is: Can the USPS retain craft jurisdictional assignments at the L&DCs as they were established at the PMPCs based on the PMPC Memorandum of Understanding? If not, what is the remedy?
In addition to the position taken by the APWU on October 10, 2003, the APWU makes the following points. It is obvious that L&DCs constitute a merger of the former PMPCs with work done at other postal facilities, the craft assignments of which are covered by RI-399. Craft assignments at the PMPCs were not directly covered by RI-399, but rather, in accordance with a unique memorandum of understanding, were governed by “the principles ofP1-399.” A review of the award of Arbitrator Benn makes it clear that the outcome would have been different had the craft assignments at the PMPCs been governed directly by RI-399 rather than “the principles of RI-399.”
Like all other postal facilities other than the PMPCs, craft assignments at the L&DC’s are governed by RI-399. Because L&DCs are not PMPCs any longer but rather new or consolidated facilities, inventories need to be taken and craft assignments made in accordance with RI-399.