0 *3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE : CASE NO . NB-N-3908

(Wallingford, CT)

and NB-N-5125(Rochester, NH)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ISSUED : September 29, 1978LETTER CARRIERS , AFL-CIO

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :

BACKGROUND

This case involves two separate grievances which 1protest instructions given to Carriers on park and loop routesto carry pre-sequenced flat mail as a separate third bundlefor certain specific dismount deliveries .

The parties agree that the facts in Case NB -N-3908 2from Wallingford , Connecticut , suffice to illustrate theissue presented in both grievances . Accordingly, the evi-dence has been limited to Case NB -N-3908 . The originalgrievance presented by Carrier John Oefinger on November 15,1974 stated :

"Frank Totz ordered Carrier to take occupantmail as third bundle into Silver Pond Apts .This is violation of M-41 . Carrier ' s routeis park & loop . Carrier was instructed todeliver each occupant to its proper mailboxbut not to sort it into other flats in theoffice ."

2 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

The grievance requested that, in the future, all such pre-sequenced flat mail should be worked in the office with otherflats .

The parties agree that pre-sequenced flat mail(received from the mailer already in proper delivery se-quence) is delivered as a third bundle by Carriers servingmotorized curb delivery routes . They also"--agree ' that pre-sequenced flat . mail carried by a" Letter Carrier serving aconventional park and loop route usually should be collatedinto the flats that the Carrier sequences himself in theoffice . The present dispute thus applies only to a narrowlylimited and exceptional situation involving "dismount" de-liveries . These are deliveries on a park and loop routewhere the Carrier leaves the vehicle to deliver mail to oneor more customers at a single delivery point such as a largeapartment house . Since pre-sequenced flat mail generallyis addressed to "Resident" or "Occupant" at each address,the Postal Service holds that such mail may be handled as athird bundle for purposes of a dismount delivery, when thisappears to be more efficient in the judgment of the Carrier'ssupervisor .

Following a realignment of routes in Wallingfordin 1974, the Silver Pond Apartments--a complex of approxi-mately 160 apartments for the elderly--were placed at thebeginning of the route carried by Grievant John Oefinger .The dismount technique is used for the deliveries at theSilver Pond Apartments . The Carrier's vehicle first isparked outside the main entrance to the apartment complex,

3

4

3 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

and the Carrier takes the mail for approximately 80 apart-ments into the lobby, where he places the mail in boxes foreach customer . He then returns to the vehicle, drives toeach of two side entrences, and repeats the procedure, withapproximately 40 deliveries in each such additional dismountstop . Except for these three dismount stops, Oefinger'sroute consists of traditional park and loop deliveries : thevehicle is parked and the Carrier delivers mail to one ormore blocks of houses at a time, walking from door to door .

It is agreedd that for :the .park .and .loop,_portionof his route, Grievant Oefinger„collates his pre-sequencedflats with the flats that he puts in delivery sequence .:dur-ing casing in the office. He specifically was instructed,however, to take the pre-sequenced flats for Silver PondApartments deliveries as a third bundle so that, while inthe office, he simply set aside the pre-sequenced flats forthe Silver Pond Apartments . The result is that at the de-livery point, the Carrier makes three insertions into themail receptacle--flats, pre-sequenced flats, and letters--rather than the two insertions (flats and then letters)which he would have made had the pre-sequenced flats beencollated into the other flats in the office .

The Postal Service stresses that it has adoptedthis third bundle method of delivery for certain specificdismount stops solely to improve efficiency . In supportof the grievance the Union relies essentially upon an in-terpretation of portions of the M-39 and M-41 Handbooks,against the background of the following provisions in the1973 National Agreement :

5

6

4. NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

Article III provides in relevant part :

"MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

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

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

Article XIX provides :

"HANDBOOKS AND MANUALS

"Copies of all handbooks, manuals, and regula-tions of the Postal Service that containsections that relate to wages, hours, andworking conditions of employees covered bythis Agreement shall be furnished to theUnions on or before January 20, 1574 .Nothing in any such handbook, manual, orregulation shall conflict with this Agree-ment . Those parts of any such handbook,

7

8

5 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

manual or regulations that directly relateto wages hours, or working conditions, asthey apply to employees covered by thisAgreement shall be continued in effectexcept that the Employer shall have theright to make changes that are not incon-sistent with this Agreement and that arefair, reasonable , and equitable .

"Notice of such proposed changes that di-rectly relate to wages, hours , or workingconditions will be furnished to the Unionsat the national level at least 30 daysprior to issuance . The parties shall meetconcerning such changes , and if the Unionsbelieve that the proposed changes violatethe National Agreement ( including thisArticle ), they may submit the issue toarbitration in accordance with the Step 4of the grievance -arbitration procedurewithin 30 days after receipt of the noticeof proposed change ."

(Underscoring added .)

Article XLI provides , in relevant part: 9

6 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

"LETTER CARRIER CRAFT

"[Section 3 ] I . Carriers shall not fingermail when driving , or when walking up ordown steps or curbs, when crossing streets,or at any time it would create a safetyhazard to the carriers or the public .Consistent with the efficiency of theoperation mail shall be placed in deliverysequence in a bundle ( s) during strappingout. The Employer shall not be required toconduct a special count or route inspectionas a result of this Agreement ."

(Underscoring added .)

The Union urges that the third bundle delivery 10method on a dismount stop increases the physical and mentaleffort required of the Carrier . In some circumstances,indeed, it suggests that the Carrier actually may carry thethird bundle in the crook of his arm , with letter mail in theleft hand , and other flats in the satchel . Under adverseweather conditions , delivery of the third bundle thus issaid to be particularly difficult . The Union also suggeststhat limited space in a Carrier ' s vehicle leaves virtuallyno room to carry the extra trays . necessary to utilize thethird bundle system . Finally , it stresses that pre-sequencedmail in the third bundle at times actually is not in properdelivery sequence when it reaches the Carrier .

7 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

The heart of the Union's interpretive argumentappears in its brief as follows :

"The M-39 and M-41 Manuals, binding on thePostal Service under Article XIX, clearlyprescribe the third bundle delivery methodfor presequenced flats only with referenceto motorized routes . Specifically , the M-41Manual in Chapter 3, Section 322, 'MotorizedRoutes ', provides for the handling of flatmail in paragraph 322 .23 as follows : 'Anysequenced mailing received by a motorizedcurb delivery route shall be delivered asa third bundle . All additional sequencedmailings available must be collated .'!/Additionally , Section 920 of the M-41, indetailing procedures for recording countdata for letter routes, provides in para-graph 922 .423 that, 'Bundled mailings ofother than letter size , made up in sequenceof delivery , are handled for second orthird bundle delivery . Make count the sameas explained in [paragraph ] 922.41 and re-cord count in column 2 .' The antecedent

1/ The glossary of the M- 41 definessequenced mail as, 'Mail made up by mailersin sequence of delivery .'

11

8 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

reference to paragraph 922 .41 clearly pre-scribes at subparagraph . 413 (in conformitywith the above -mentioned paragraph 322 .23)that carriers on motorized curb-deliveryroutes do not case sequenced flats ( or let-ters ) or record them with other cased mail,but are to deliver them as a third bundle .Thus, the only two references in the M-41Manual to the practice of delivering se-quenced flats as a third bundle limit suchdirection only to motorized routes .

"By way of contrast , Section 323 , ' Park andLoop Routes ', does not prescribe the thirdbundle delivery method for sequenced flats .Indeed, the Postal Service does not disputethat the third bundle method is not requiredfor sequenced flats on park and loop or footroutes (Tr . 14, 31-32) . Paragraph 323 .1 ofthe M-41 in fact states that, 'Delivery ofmail on park and loop routes is basicallythe same as for foot routes with relays .The vehicle is used as a movable relay boxfrom which the carrier withdraws a substan-tial amount of mail, placing his mail intohis satchel before beginning the route .'Furthermore , as the Union ' s uncontrovertedevidence shows , the dismount delivery por-tion of a park and loop route is just likea traditional park and loop route and un-like a motorized curbline route (Tr . 47) .

9 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

Therefore , since the Postal Service alonewas responsible for drafting the M-41 Manualand had every opportunity to specify otherexceptions where the third bundle deliverymethod was to be used , it is a fair implica-tion to suggest that any doubt as to theapplication of the M-41 should be resolvedagainst the drafter ."

On the basis of this analysis , the :Union . holds that 12the case is controlled by the rule of construction . .known as"expressio unius est exclusio alterius ." It`is axiomaticin cases of contract construction , says the Union, .-that wherethe parties expressly state certain exceptions , to a .generalrule, this indicates that there are to be . no other exceptions .Here it cites generalizations found in Elkouri & Elkouri,How Arbitration Works (BNA, Inc ., 3rd Ed . 1973), p . 310, andFairweather, Practice and Procedure in Labor Arbitration ,(BNA, Inc ., lst Ed . 1973), p . 170 .

Approximately the same time credit is allowed the 13Carrier for delivering a third bundle on dismount as would beallowed for casing the same pre-sequenced flats in the office :both are included in the route evaluation on the basis oftime actually required . Since the Union feels , however, thatthe third bundle method involves greater physical and mentaleffort, it believes the grievance should be sustained becausenothing in the M-41 or M-39 Handbooks authorizes use of thisdelivery method .

10. NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

The Postal Service, in reply, stresses its exclusive 14right under Article III, Section D, to determine methods bywhich operations are to be conducted . Absent a contractuallybinding restraint upon the exercise of this authority, thePostal Service clearly may direct a Carrier to utilize thethird bundle method on appropriate dismount deliveries . Noneof the cited provisions in the M-39 or M-41 Handbooks, saysthe Service, reasonably could be read to restrict its exerciseof authority under Article III . It sees no appropriate basisfor adopting the expressio unius est exclusio alterius maximin applying the Handbooks .

While the Union claims that the third bundle in- 15creases the difficulty of the Carrier's work, the Servicenotes that actually there is no fingering of mail required .Carriers generally do not finger their mail while walking toapartment buildings . Once inside, the Carrier opens thedoor to the mail receptacles and then delivers the mail intothe receptacles . There is ample room for the third bundlein his satchel up to this point . None of the various pro-visions cited by the Union from the M-41 nor the M-39 actu-ally prohibits the Postal Service from determining thatCarriers should use a third bundle for certain dismountdeliveries where deemed more efficient .

The Service, finally, challenges the Union's reli-ance on Article XLI, Section 3(I), which states that"Consistent with the efficiency of the operation, mail shallbe placed in delivery sequence in a bundle(s) during strappingout ." This Section, it says, in no way prohibits use of athird bundle--it simply provides that mail should be placed

16

11. NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

in delivery sequence in one or more bundles during strappingout . Moreover , this specific sentence starts with the ~~phrase "Consistent with the efficiency of the operation . . ."

Here the Service has determined that it is more efficient toutilize the third bundle system for these dismount deliveries .In no way does the delivery method alter the total amount ofmail and the same amount of room in the Carrier ' s satchel is .required under both the two-bundle and three -bundle techniques .

FINDINGS

Nothing in Article XLI, Section 3(I) reasonably may 17be construed to limit the authority of Management to makelimited use of the third bundle delivery method under thespecific circumstances developed in this record . The sen-tence therein which is cited by the . Union specifically isqualified by the phrase " Consistent with the efficiency ofthe operation . . ." It is a normal Management functionunder Article III to determine , on the basis of its evalua-tion of facts available , the most efficient method of effect-ing deliveries , except where its discretion is limited undersome relevant contractual provision or other provision pro-tected under Section XIX .

Thus , the only significant issue here arises under 18Article XIX as quoted earlier in this Opinion . Here theUnion cites provisions in the M-41 and M-39 Handbooks whichdo not specifically apply and relies on the expressio unius

12 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

theory of contract interpretation to support its view thatthe Handbooks preclude use of the third bundle deliverymethod in the present situation . This kind of argumentappears to equate the LISPS Handbooks with carefully drawn,highly technical legal documents, such as a trust indenture .It would seem, however, that this kind of an interpretivetheory at best could have only limited value as an aid tosound interpretation of typical collective bargaining agree-ments . Moreover , its application here would overlook-:thefact that the Handbook : provisions were not drafted:to repre-sent the results of collective bargaining , but rather-essen-tially to set forth policies and procedures to guide .USPSemployees in the performance of their numerous and variedduties . While it is entirely clear that such policies andprocedures may. embody provisions which on their face (or byreasonable implication) constitute conditions of employment,it must be recognized that some operating conditions or prob-lems are not of sufficiently great importance to warrantspecific treatment in a Manual , Handbook , or Regulation . Thusit seems unsound at best to attempt to read such a documentas if it were designed to cover expressly every possiblesituation which might arise in the course of . operations .

There is nothing in either the M-39 or M-41 Hand- 19books which specifically treats the kind of situation hereinvolved . The M-41 language in Chapter 3, Section 322 .23applies only to motorized routes and requires use of thethird bundle delivery method for the first pre-sequencedmailing to be delivered on any given day . The next sentence("All additional sequenced mailings available must be col-lated") obviously refers to additional such mailings to be

13 . NB-N-3908,NB-N-5125

delivered that same day on the specific motorized route . . 2A6'useful inference, for present purposes, can be drawn--fromthis provision . Other M-41 provisions cited for letterroutes (Section 920, Paragraphs 922 .423, 922 .41, 922 .413,etc .) deal with the recording of count data for the varioustypes of routes, treating the typical situations which mayarise on each .

Thus the critical fact here is that the Union does 20not point to any specific Handbook provision which clearly(or by reasonable implication) could have been violated bythe instruction given to Grievant Oefinger in the presentcase . The required conclusion, under the present evidence,is that the Handbooks simply were not intended to cover thisnarrowly limited type of situation at all . The challengedaction in the present case thus constituted a reasonableexercise of Management authority under Article III .

AWARD

The grievance is denied. 21