Delivering information when you need it most.

October 1997
Vol. 1 No. 1 Page 12

"Operational Window"
by Thom Green
(continued from page 11)

A possible key to proving management used its idea of an "Operational Window" without cause can be in how it applies the "Window". It might use the "Window" only in one station of a multi-station delivery office.

Or, as Brother Farris writes: "An 'Operational Window' would clearly be an unreasonable exercise of management rights if, for example, a 4 p.m. window for the completion of delivery were established in an installation where letter carriers are not normally scheduled to complete delivery until 3 p.m. Such a window, if unchallenged, would effectively eliminate the contractual protections that exist against mandatory overtime."

When grieving the application of an "Operational Window" the argument is not the "Window" itself, rather the unreasonable result of requiring a letter carrier not on any overtime desired list to work mandatory overtime. He suggests you file a grievance individually as opposed to a class action. Next Column

"In most cases, two separate grievances should be filed: one asking for compensatory time off with pay (not Administrative Leave) for the carrier wrongly forced to work overtime; and another asking for pay at the overtime rate for the carrier or carriers on the OTDL denied the opportunity to work the overtime at issue."

Stewards arguing any "Operational Window" with management should point out that management could avoid the use of mandatory overtime with proper scheduling. During an investigation stewards should review managements' schedules, carrier clock rings (to see when carriers started), the mail volume for the day (including the percentage of mail in the building at a given hour), any 3996's in use, and they should ask to see all 1571's used during the days in question.

Thom Green, Editor-In-Chief,
NALC Branch No. 116
Fort Wayne, IN

E-mail: ZOOSTEW@aol.com

Previous Page Page 12 Next Page