Where a monetary award is the appropriate remedy, the usual measure of damages 'is not whether grievant was compensated for the hours he worked, ... but rather whether he was improperly deprived of ... work that day' (C-5821). The remedy for unfair denial of scheduled work to a successful hold-down bidder is the employee's regular wage for the hours that he or she should have worked, less the hours that he or she actually worked (C-6142).
The following arbitration awards are among those which held that monetary awards were
appropriate remedies for violations of employees' rights to opt:
C-04739 Arbitrator Leventhal
March 28, 1985
C-05821 Arbitrator Rotenberg
March 24, 1986
C-06142 Arbitrator Britton
May 9, 1986
C-W39 Arbitrator Dennis
June 19, 1986
C-06395 Arbitrator Stephens
August 8, 1986
C-06904 Arbitrator Jacobowski
March 6, 1987
C-07001 Arbitrator Scearce
April 8, 1987
C-10181 Arbitrator Sobel
July 23, 1990
C-1 0264 Arbitrator Parkinson
Sept. 4, 1990
C-1 071 0 Arbitrator Taylor
March 15, 1991
IX CONCLUSION
Opting provides letter carriers with a means of exercising their seniority to temporarily obtain desirable full-time assignments when the regular carriers are unavailable to work. In particular, opting provides valuable opportunities for PTFs to secure additional work. The policies for filling and working these hold-down assignments are expressed In local agreements, the National Agreement, national grievance settlements, and a history of arbitration awards. Opting procedures are designed to be efficient and fair, but can also be quite technical. The best way to
avoid confusion and potential disputes about opting is to become familiar with the procedures and remain aware of the common problem areas.
August 1992
