August 2001
August 2001
Steve Burt, Director of Education
Light duty work has become a very significant topic for letter carriers. This is due to recent decisions by USPS management which have attacked a number of carriers with long term health issues. Even some employees with approved OWCP claims have found themselves suddenly reclassified as light duty due to highly controversial management decisions.
Light duty employees are very vulnerable to abuse because their hours are not guaranteed and because management can separate employees on long-term or permanent light duty. Once a current physical has been obtained and the employee has been afforded retirement counseling, the axe can fall whenever management decides to let it.
Light Duty Work
Light duty work is work requested due to an injury or illness not recognized as arising from the course of employment. Some light duty employees become limited duty employees after winning injury or illness claims before the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Wage loss or leave use prior to approval of the claim can be recouped through submission of Form CA-7.
Requesting Light Duty work
Light duty work should be requested in writing to the installation head, per Article 13 of our National Agreement. This is most crucial because management can win light duty grievances on a technicality if the grievant cannot prove that light duty was properly requested in writing. A copy of the request should be retained by the requesting employee in all cases when requesting light duty. Any such request should include a copy of the current medical update of the employee, so that risks can be assessed and work provided based on restrictions. It is noted, hours are not guaranteed, but the ill or injured employee is promised the “greatest consideration” and such employees are to be reassigned to the greatest extent possible.
Light Duty and Overtime
Light duty employees can sign overtime lists and do perform overtime in certain circumstances. A policy of categorically denying overtime to light duty employee would clearly violate Article 8 of the National Agreement. The current Step 4 decision on this subject, M-00795, states:
We agreed that employees on light duty and limited duty may sign the "Overtime Desired" list. We further agreed the parties at Step 3 are to apply Article 13, Section 3.B., and Part 546 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual to the specific fact circumstances involved in this case. Also whether or not the grievant's physical condition and status was such that he could work overtime is a question that can only be answered based on the facts involved.
Light Duty and 8 Hour Maximum
An additional overtime settlement, M-01360, protects employees who can only work 8 hours, stating:
(From the Snow award in Case Number H1C-5K-C 24191) An inability to work overtime does not necessarily prohibit an employee from performing his or her normal assignment. Accordingly, such an individual working with such a restriction is not necessarily on "light duty". Employees restricted from working overtime may bid on and receive assignments for which they can perform a regular eight hour assignment.Light Duty Grievances
Light duty grievances can be brought forth citing Article 13 of the NALC National Agreement. Under Section 13.2.C, the “greatest consideration” language is found:
Installation heads shall show the greatest consideration for full-time regular or part-time flexible employees requiring light duty or other assignments, giving each request careful attention, and reassign such employees to the extent possible in the employee’s office.PTF Argument
A frequent argument in such grievances is that craft work which a regular could perform is being granted to PTF’s. Such grievances should cite Article 13, Section 3.B:
B. Light duty assignments may be established from part-time hours, to consist of 8 hours or less in a service day and 40 hours or less in a service week. The establishment of such assignment does not guarantee any hours to a part-time flexible employee.Overtime Argument
When significant overtime is being paid in the unit and light duty carriers are being arbitrarily denied all work or sent home prematurely, such a situation can be grieved due to its being an arbitrary and capricious action that needlessly harms the light duty employee. Paying unnecessary overtime rather than working a light duty person is a grossly wasteful business practice, violates the “greatest consideration” obligation under Article 13, and actually violates Article 3 Management Rights, because that Article requires management to conduct its business efficiently. Article 3, Section C specifically states: The Employer shall have the exclusive right, subject o the provisions of this Agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations:
C. To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it;Light Duty and Pregnancy
When our female employees exercise their reproductive freedom, the Postal Service often responds in highly destructive ways. We have had pregnant employees denied all work in our worst case examples even when they could still set up and carry several hours. Perhaps it was starting to take extra minutes on each loop. In some cases these decisions appeared to be nothing more than heartless actions. Most employers rally behind their employees at a time such as this, but our employer is nothing short of disgusting in its treatment of the pregnant letter carrier. Needless financial hardship is quickly added to the many other challenges facing our “moms-to-be.”
Not only should such actions be grieved as above but such grievances can also cite National Agreement Article 2, Civil Rights. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended in 1978, with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, addresses discrimination due to pregnancy. Although women who are pregnant are not afforded greater protections than other employees from basic employment policies, a woman cannot be fired, denied employment, or denied work solely because of an exercise of her reproductive freedom. An arbitrary and capricious denial of available work to a female letter carrier simply because she is pregnant would be gross violation of our contract and would be contrary to the employee’s civil rights. We need to stand strongly together as a Union when management abuses our members for exercising their reproductive freedom!
In Conclusion
Remember, an injury to one is an injury to all. You may think that this is someone else’s problem, but the next ill or injured employee could be you. Too many letter carriers have learned that all the good years they gave this company counted for nothing the day they could not pick up that satchel.
