CIM Section 30.3A

The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 30 – Local Implementation Procedures, reprinted above, sets out the specific provisions for impasse of items remaining in dispute. Either party may impasse and submit to interest arbitration a provision in a LMOU that relates to one of the 20 items listed in Section 30.2. Neither party, however, has the right to resort to impasse arbitration over subject matters outside the 20 items.

Source: National Arbitration Award H0C-NA-C 3, Arbitrator R. Mittenthal, dated July 12, 1993.

The parties have agreed that the time limits for appeal to Regional level arbitration contained in the Memorandum of Understanding supersede the language found in this section. The ten day period provided for in Section 30.3 is overridden by the Memorandum of Understanding which provides 21 days.

Source: Letter from W. Flynn, NPMHU, to A. Wilson, USPS, dated June 19, 2002.

Question: If there is no agreement on a proposal as a result of local implementation, and the proposal is not referred to the Area/Regional level and/or to impasse arbitration, is the proposal thereby automatically adopted by the local parties?

Answer: No. Where there is no agreement, and the matter is not referred to the Area/Regional level or to arbitration, the provision(s), if any, of the former LMOU shall apply unless inconsistent or in conflict with new or amended provisions of the current National Agreement.

Management may challenge a local memorandum provision as in conflict or inconsistent only by making a reasonable claim during the local implementation process that a provision(s) of the LMOU is inconsistent or in conflict with new or amended provisions in 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 the LMOU 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. When management declares an item to be in conflict and/or inconsistent during the local implementation period, the union has the burden to appeal that item under the impasse procedures. Management may cease to honor provisions of a LMOU which it deems to be in conflict or inconsistent with the National Agreement after four months have elapsed following the conclusion of the local implementation period.

Management may also make an in conflict or inconsistent challenge as a result of a mid-term change or addition to the National Agreement that is made subsequent to the local implementation period, but only by making a reasonable claim that a provision(s) of the LMOU is inconsistent or in conflict with the changed provision(s) of the National Agreement. In this circumstance, the local memorandum provision must remain in effect for 120 days from the date that management notified the union of the challenge or the date on which an arbitrator rules on the challenge, whichever is sooner.

The parties have agreed that the introduction of the CIM does not constitute “new or amended provisions” or “a mid-term change or addition” to the National Agreement and that, therefore, it cannot be used as a basis to declare an item in an existing Local Memorandum of Understanding inconsistent or in conflict with the National Agreement.

Arbitrator Garrett declared that a proposal which may seem to seek a result in conflict with the National Agreement, but which nonetheless seeks to deal with a genuine problem within the scope of Article 30, still may provide a basis for good faith negotiations. “Nothing in the present Article (XXX) authorizes a refusal to negotiate concerning a local proposal, on one of the subjects delineated in Paragraph (B) thereof.” However, “either party may and should resist agreement upon any compromise or alternate solution which would conflict with the National Agreement.”

Source: National Arbitration Award Impasse 78, Arbitrator S. Garrett, dated October 28, 1974.

While the parties may discuss and implement language which is outside the scope of the 20 items listed in Section 30.2, they are not required to do so. Arbitrator Mittenthal ruled that it would take clear contractual language to prohibit the local parties from negotiating a clause on a subject outside the listed items and that no such language exists in Article 30. In this case, in which local management in Helena, MT had agreed to restrict the re-labeling of carrier cases to the regular carrier or T-6, the arbitrator ruled that the “exclusive right” provisions of Article 3 did not prevent local management from agreeing to “limit the assignment of particular work to particular employees. That was simply one of the options available to it. Because this Helena clause was hence within Management’s powers, it can hardly be considered ‘inconsistent or in conflict with’ Article III rights.”

Arbitrator Mittenthal added that the local parties are free if they wish to expand their negotiating agenda to include subjects nowhere mentioned in Section 30.2, but that neither party can be required to negotiate any subject outside those listed.

Source: National Arbitration Award N8-W-0406, Arbitrator R. Mittenthal, dated September 21, 1981.