[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-279420-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-279420-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","regular-arbitration-panel-c-34614-award-summary","REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL - C-34614 - AWARD SUMMARY","","Regular arbitration panel case C-34614 addresses a grievance involving the United States Postal Service and the NALC over alleged violations of Article 5 of the National Agreement. The dispute centers on management changing an established past practice that allowed Union stewards to perform Union duties off Postal premises on the clock without Union notice and a good-faith bargaining opportunity. The award sustains the grievance, orders reinstatement of the practice, and requires cease-and-desist from unilateral changes, while denying a requested $200 lump sum.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/regular-arbitration-panel-c-34614-award-summary/279420/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/regular-arbitration-panel-c-34614-award-summary/279420.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"McQueen","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",19,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What issue did the arbitration panel consider in case C-34614?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The panel considered whether management violated Article 5 by not allowing Union Steward Lionel Kinler to perform Union duties at the Union office off the Mandeville, LA Post Office premises, and, if so, what remedy was appropriate.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What did the award require as the remedy?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The award reinstates the longstanding practice permitting stewards to conduct Union duties off Postal premises while on the clock. It also requires the Service to cease and desist from unilaterally changing an established past practice without prior notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Was the Union’s request for a $200 lump sum granted?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"No. The award summary states that the request for a $200.00 lump sum payment was not warranted.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},279420,1789520470,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":85,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":33},5909890329169,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL  \nC-34614  \nIn the Matter of the Arbitration )  \n) GRIEVANT: Lionel Kinler  \nBetween )  \n) POST OFFICE: Mandeville, LA  \n)  \nUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE )  \n)  \nAnd ) CASE Numbers:  \n) USPS: G16N-4G-C 19205028  \nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER ) NALC: M1019LK  \nCARRIERS, AFL-CIO ) DRT: 08464361  \n  )  \nBEFORE: Sherrie Rose Talmadge, Esq. , ARBITRATOR  \nAPPEARANCES:  \nFor the U.S. Postal Service: James T. D’Aquin, Labor Relations Specialist  \nFor the NALC: Corey Walton, Local Business Agent  \nJoseph Ruffino, Technical Advisor  \nPlace of Hearing: 1 St. Ann Drive, Mandeville, LA  \nDate of Hearing: January 30, 2020  \nDate of Award: March 17 , 2020  \nRelevant Contract Provisions: Article 5  \nDate of Contract: 2016-2019  \nType of Grievance: Contract  \nAWARD SUMMARY  \nManagement violated Article 5 of the National Agreement, by changing the existing valid past practice of allowing Union stewards, including Steward Kinler, on USPS approved Union time, to conduct on the clock Union duties off Postal premises at the Union office, without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith.  \nAccordingly, the grievance is sustained. As a remedy, the longstanding practice of permitting stewards to conduct Union duties off Postal premises, while on the clock, is to be reinstated. The Service is to cease and desist from unilaterally changing an established past practice without providing the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith. Any future changes must be done in accordance with the National Agreement and JCAM at Article 5.  \nHowever, the Union’s request for a $200.00 lump sum payment is not warranted.  \nSherrie Rose Talmadge, Arbitrator  \nSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES  \n1. Did Management violate Article 5 of the National Agreement by not allowing Union Steward Lionel Kinler to conduct his Union duties at the Union office located off the Mandeville, LA Post Office premises?  \n2. And if so , what is the appropriate remedy?  \nCONTRACT PROVISIONS, MANUALS and HANDBOOKS  \nARTICLE 5. Prohibition of Unilateral Action  \nThe Employer will not take any actions affecting wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment as defined in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act which violate the terms of this Agreement or are otherwise inconsistent with its obligations under law.  \nJCAM  \nProhibition on Unilateral Changes. Article 5 prohibits management taking any unilateral action inconsistent with the terms of the existing agreement or with its obligations under law. Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act prohibits an employer from making unilateral changes in wages, hours or working conditions during the term of a collective bargaining agreement.  \nNot all unilateral actions are prohibited by the language in Article 5 – only those affecting wages, hours or working conditions as defined in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act. Additionally, certain management decisions concerning the operation of the business are specifically reserved in Article 3 unless otherwise restricted by a specific contractual provision.  \nFINDINGS OF FACTS1  \nAccording to NALC Branch President J.J. Mosely, approximately 8 or more years ago, Mandeville Postmaster Benny Moschitta decided to no longer permit the Union to work on grievance processing and investigations at the postal facility and told the Union to find another place to do union work off postal premises. President Mosely and former Shop Stewards Mark Nave and Kent Kable indicated that for the past eight (8) years, the NALC Branch 6377 Union representatives have been traveling to their Union office at 901 Florida Avenue, Mandeville, LA on the clock for grievance processing and investigations. The Union began renting the Union office on or about May 13, 2009 and is currently bound by a lease on their Union office space. This practice of permitting shop stewards to travel , on the clock, to their Union office off of the","cbCaikBeCpPCSIDm","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikBeCpPCSIDm","pdf",191576,"English","# Award Summary\n## Statement of the Issues\n## Contract Provisions\n## JCAM Prohibition on Unilateral Changes\n## Findings of Facts","[{\"question\":\"What issue did the arbitration panel consider in case C-34614?\",\"answer\":\"The panel considered whether management violated Article 5 by not allowing Union Steward Lionel Kinler to perform Union duties at the Union office off the Mandeville, LA Post Office premises, and, if so, what remedy was appropriate.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the award require as the remedy?\",\"answer\":\"The award reinstates the longstanding practice permitting stewards to conduct Union duties off Postal premises while on the clock. It also requires the Service to cease and desist from unilaterally changing an established past practice without prior notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith.\"},{\"question\":\"Was the Union’s request for a $200 lump sum granted?\",\"answer\":\"No. The award summary states that the request for a $200.00 lump sum payment was not warranted.\"}]","REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL - C-34614 - AWARD SUMMARY | PDF"]