U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union

• Decision Date: 27 November 2012
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 12–562 (RHK/JJK).
• Citation: 907 F.Supp.2d 986
• Parties: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Plaintiff/Counter–Defendant, v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL–CIO, Defendant/Counter–Plaintiff.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

907 F.Supp.2d 986

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Plaintiff/Counter–Defendant,

v.AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL–CIO, Defendant/Counter–Plaintiff.

Civ. No. 12–562 (RHK/JJK).

United States District Court,

D. Minnesota.

Nov. 27, 2012.

Teresa A. Gonsalves, James P. Verdi, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., Ana H. Voss, Bahram Samie, United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff/Counter–Defendant.

Richard S. Edelman, O'Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson, PC, Washington, D.C., Justin D. Cummins, Brendan D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant/Counter–Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This Court often is called upon to answer complicated questions of constitutional law, impose criminal sentences depriving individuals of their liberty, and opine on thorny issues regarding the fundamental rights of citizens. This case concerns something far more mundane: the size of storage lockers. But the issue apparently is of great importance to the parties, Plaintiff United States Postal Service (the “Postal Service”) and Defendant American Postal Workers Union (the “Union”), which have litigated a dispute about lockers at the Eagan, Minnesota mail-processing facility for more than two years, through a three-step grievance process, binding arbitration, and now in this Court, where the Union seeks to confirm the underlying arbitration award and the Postal Service seeks to vacate it. The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Postal Service's Motion, deny the Union's Motion, and vacate the award.

BACKGROUND

Although the parties' dispute is a simple one, the facts are complicated by a very muddled administrative record. A careful review of that record, however, reveals that the material facts are undisputed, as set forth below.

I. The CBA

The Postal Service and the Union, which represents certain Postal Service employees, are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) requiring disputes over wages, hours, and conditions of employment to be resolved through a progressive, three-step grievance process. (AR 102–21.) ¹ When that process fails to resolve a dispute, the parties must then participate in binding arbitration. ( Id. 103–09.) “All decisions of the arbitrator[ ] shall be limited to the terms and provisions of [the CBA], and in no event may the terms and provisions of [the CBA] be altered, amended, or modified by an arbitrator.” ( Id. 115.)

The CBA incorporates by reference the provisions of postal handbooks “directly relat[ing] to wages, hours or working conditions.” ( Id. 136–37.) At issue here are handbooks containing design criteria for the construction of postal facilities. Those criteria include provisions for various types of employee accommodations, such as lunchrooms, storage areas, and key to this case, lockers for employee uniforms and related garb. It is undisputed that the design criteria for lockers “directly relate to ... working conditions” for Postal Service employees and, hence, any dispute regarding them is subject to the CBA's grievance-arbitration process.

II. Design criteria

As of 2005, the design criteria for all newly constructed postal facilities were contained in a handbook known as the “AS–503.” ( Id. 784–85.) This included the criteria for mail-processing facilities (“MPFs”), previously known as “major facilities,” which are large buildings housing “massive machines and hundreds of employees” at which mail is sorted and processed for daily delivery. ( Id.; Sparks Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.) The 2005 version of the AS–503 provided that MPFs (and all other buildings) were to have “single tier, full height” lockers. (AR 784.)

In 2007, the Postal Service amended the AS–503 and “extracted” the criteria for “major facilities,” compiling them in a separate document known as the “MPF Design Criteria.” ( Id. 772; Sparks Decl. ¶ 6.) The 2007 AS–503 made this clear in several places. Its “Contents” section, for example, provided that “the criteria related to the facility type formerly known as ‘Majors' ha [ve] been extracted and compiled in a separate folder named ‘MPF’ (Mail Processing Facilities).” (AR 772.) The section entitled “How to Use This Handbook” contained the same language. ( Id. 773.) And the “Introduction” section provided that the requirements for MPFs “have been extracted ... and are now contained under a separate folder on the Building Design Standards CD–ROM.” ( Id. 778.)

The 2007 “extraction” of design criteria for MPFs resulted in two different locker standards for new Postal Service buildings, depending on the type of building in question. For non-MPFs, the AS–503 handbook applied; it provided that new buildings in certain regions of the country (Zones I and II, generally the southern two-thirds of the United States) were to receive “[d]ouble tier half-height lockers” or “full height half-wide lockers,” while those in Zone III (the northern third of the country), including Minnesota, were to receive “full size lockers.” (AR 779.) By contrast, the MPF Design Criteria handbook provided that MPFs in Zone III were to receive “full height half width lockers.” ( Id. 782, 787–88.) ² In other words, Minnesota MPFs were to receive half-width lockers, while non-MPFs were to receive full-size ones. ³

III. The Eagan facility and the grievance-arbitration process

In 2008, the Postal Service commenced construction of a new mail processing and distribution center (P & DC) to replace the existing P & DC in Eagan, Minnesota. ( Id. 797.) Construction was completed and the facility was opened in August 2010.( Id.) Because Minnesota is located in Zone III, half-width lockers were installed in the new building, pursuant to the 2007 MPF Design Criteria handbook.

The previous P & DC, however, had contained full-width lockers. Displeased that its members were provided with smaller lockers than they had before, the Union invoked the CBA and filed a grievance with the Postal Service in September 2010, asserting that the new building violated the design criteria (and hence the CBA, which incorporates those criteria) by “install[ing] and provid[ing] half-size lockers to ... employees.” ( Id. 764.) But in support, it cited the wrong document—the 2007 AS–503, which stated “[i]n Zone 3, provide full-size lockers”—rather than the 2007 MPF Design Criteria handbook, which required only half-width lockers.

A. Step 1

The Postal Service orally denied the Union's grievance at step 1 of the grievance process.⁴ As there is no written decision, the basis upon which the grievance was denied is unclear from the record. However, the Union appealed the denial to step 2. (AR 762.)

B. Step 2

On May 13, 2011, the Postal Service again denied the grievance. But instead of pointing out that the Union had invoked the wrong locker standard (the 2007 AS–503), it claimed that the AS–503 had been amended in 2010 to permit smaller lockers, as part of a cost-savings measure. (AR 760.) It concluded that “Handbook AS–503, Standard Design Criteria (September 17, 2010)” prescribed “full height, half width lockers shall be used” for MPFs in Zone III, and such lockers had in fact been installed at the Eagan P & DC. ( Id. 761 (emphasis added).)

As noted above, however, the AS–503 does not apply to MPFs, and hence at first blush the Postal Service appears to have relied on the wrong handbook at step 2. But a closer examination of the step–2 decision makes clear that the Postal Service did not err. This is because the language quoted by the Postal Service in its written decision—“full height, half width lockers shall be used”— is not found in the AS–503. Rather, that language appears only in the MPF Design Criteria handbook. ( Compare AR 779 with id. 782.) In other words, while the Postal Service said it was relying on the wrong document—the AS–503—to deny the grievance, in actuality it was relying on the correct document, the MPF Design Criteria handbook, but mis-cited it as the AS–503.⁵

C. Step 3

The Union then appealed to step 3, but on August 19, 2011, the Postal Service once again denied its grievance. ( Id. 755.) As at step 2, it noted that the applicable standard required only half-width lockers at the Eagan P & DC. Yet it once again miscited to the AS–503, rather than the MPF Design Criteria handbook, for the controlling standard: “[The Postal Service] cites the updated Handbook AS–503 dated September 17, 2010, which specifies that full height, half width lockers shall be used in [Z]one 3.” ( Id.) To reiterate, no such language is found in either the 2007 or 2010 versions of the AS–503; it appears only in the MPF Design Criteria handbook. Hence, it is clear the Postal Service actually relied on the MPF Design Criteria handbook, which contained the language quoted in its written decisions at step 2 and step 3.

D. Arbitration

The Union next sought to arbitrate the parties' dispute. Postal Service “Labor Relations Specialist” Kenneth Glassburner was appointed to serve as the Postal Service's “advocate” at the arbitration hearing. In reviewing the record of the prior proceedings, he discovered the errors noted above regarding citations to the MPF Design Criteria handbook, as well as the fact that the Union was relying on the inapplicable standards found in the AS–503. He informed the Union's advocate (William Mellen) of these facts and provided him with a copy of the 2007 MPF Design Criteria handbook, the version in effect at the time the P & DC was built, in advance of the arbitration hearing. (Glassburner Decl. ¶ 16.)

But when Glassburner attempted to use that document at the hearing, Mellen objected that it had not been cited during the grievance process or previously entered into the record. ( Id. ¶¶ 20–23; Mellen Decl. ¶ 13.) The arbitrator sustained this objection, ruling that the Postal Service could not rely upon the 2007 MPF Design Criteria handbook to support its...