|
||||||
Shared Services Questions Third Meeting (January 29,2008,10:00 AM) Present: USPS - Nancy Laich, Joni Marshall, Linda OsCallahan, Chris Jordan, & Patrick Devine; APWU - Rob Strunk, Mike Morris, Pat Williams, & Lyle Krueth. 1. HRSSC is currently improperly counting successful applications for best qualified duty assignments under Article 37.3.A.7.b and c as successful bids pursuant to Article 12.3.A. When will this be corrected retroactively? Response: The USPS agrees that while bids for "best qualified bids pursuant to Article 37.3.A.7.a do count as successful bids under Article 12.3.A, "best qualified" applications under Article 37.3.A.b and c do not count as successful bids. If the union can demonstrate that any applications were incorrectly counted as bids in the past, it will be corrected by HRSS. 2. Currently in St. Paul, MN web bidding does not match the manual bid sheet specifically on retail duty assignments with rotating days off. For example, in the most recent posting web bidding had a 6 week rotation listed and the manual bid sheet for the same duty assignment had a 4 week rotation. How and when will this recurring issue be addressed? Until the fix is made can something be put on the web instructing prospective bidders on duty assignments with rotating days off to refer the manual bid sheet for the proper rotation? Response: This is currently being corrected by HRSS the utilization of a System Correction Request (SCR). If the SCR cannot be accomplished in a timely manner, an appropriate warning will be placed on the web site. 3. When HRSSC cannot comply with LMOU requirements on posting and bidding, what procedure is in place to make sure the local office has the option of manual posting in order to comply with the LMOU? Response: HRSS acknowledged that time constraints in LMOUs must be adhered to. Local services has been directed that when HRSS cannot comply with an LMOU, manual posting is mandatory. 4. It is the position of the APWU that the results of a posting are effective on the effective date of the award notice and not on the closing date of the posting period, does HRSSC agree? Response: There is a problem created when a senior bidder on a duty assignment with a deferment period bids on a subsequent posting and then qualifies on the original deferment during the interim between the closing of the posting period and the posting of results of the subsequent posting. The APWU position is that the results of a posting are effective on the effective date of the award notice and not on the closing date of the posting period. HRSS will notify the Union shortly if there is disagreement. 5. HRSSC is improperly placing unsuccessful bidders who attempt and fail to qualify on schemes on 37.3.F.7 duty assignments under a 37.3 F.3.b absolute 90-day bidding restriction instead of a 37.3.F.7.b 180-day bidding restriction to the same position. When will that be corrected and will it be automatically done retroactively? Response: Labor Relations has clarified for HRSS that the application of JCIM Article 37 question 195 makes the application of the 37.3.F.7.b 180-day bidding restriction clear. Therefore, a clerk who fails the scheme requirement on an SSDA duty assignment is restricted from bidding for 180 days on other SSDA duty assignments ONLY. See all USPS Responses to APWU Questions (posted 2/17/08) |
||||||
Below
is the APWU version of Question and Answers (Q & A
.doc) regarding the change-over
to posting and bidding by Human Resources Shared Services Center (HRSSC).
The Q & A represents APWU's position on various conflicts, especially when the
change has resulted in a violation of Local Memorandum of Understanding (LMOU).
An Area Appeal for each of the Districts in the Region has been initiated, but
specific violations (and remedies) must be documented locally. |
||||||
SHARED SERVICES Q&AVacancy Postings1. How will job bidding occur during the down time created by the migration process? This is a local issue which must be worked out with local management. Many offices have agreed to proceed with manual bidding, etc. USPS acknowledged their commitment to follow both national and local MOU posting requirements.
2. Will vacancy postings show who the duty assignment was “vacated by”? This problem occurs at the time of migration and will go away. If jobs were vacated before migration system will not “carry over” the “vacated by” information. For all duty assignments vacated after migration to Shared Services, the “vacated by” information will be included in the vacancy posting.
3. Will vacancy postings include the pay location? Initially, Shared Services seemed very reluctant to deal with this. Appears to be a problem of Shared Services wanting to “wean” local management from reliance on “pay locations.” We were told that where this could be included as part of the “Section” it could be done. At the August 6, 2007 meeting we were told that pay location “probably” could be included in the Job Comments.
4. Will vacancy postings reflect varied start times? This is currently a “system” problem. The “work schedule” slot on the posting information only includes one schedule. Where a job has varied schedules this is reflected by the letter “V” at the end of the schedule. Where all days have the same hours it is reflected with the letter “S” for “same.” However, at this time it will be necessary for local services to provide the varied start times in the Job Comments Section. We were advised that Shared Services would be exploring whether the system could be modified to report actual varied start times in the posting in accordance with Article 37.3.E.
5. What can be done to ensure the vacancy posting is identical for prospective bidders whether they bid manually, by telephone or by computer? Discrepancies between “lite blue” and the hard copy vacancy postings were discussed. “Lite blue” is omitting “Section and/or PAA” as well as the Job Comments block which includes critical information. Off days and/or start times are frequently showing up differently. USPS computer people are currently researching these problems and will be developing a “fix.” Parties agreed that job postings must contain the required information in both systems. What to do with postings which have occurred is a local issue. USPS stated they are making software changes to ensure that principal assignment area and comment section will be included in future “lite blue” postings. 6. Can the vacancy posting be made more legible either by increasing font size or by being provided to local human resources in excel or similar format? We were told that Shared Services will be omitting the underlining of the Job # which has been a problem. Some issues on legibility have been local issues because of printer problems and/or local scanning, etc. 7. Can duty assignments be consistently grouped in the vacancy posting by section rather than job number? System can either list the duty assignments by Job # or group them alphabetically by station and/or section within Customer Service and Mail Processing. APWU expressed the need for consistency. We were advised that this should and would be accomplished.
8. Is there a limitation on the number of words or letters that may be included in the comments section of a posting? Shared Services indicates that the “Job Comments” section can include five (5) lines. We were told that local services and the District TC’s were aware of this limitation but it was promised that this information would be re-transmitted to them. 9. Can an LMOU or a binding practice that establishes a bid closing time other than at midnight be accommodated by Shared Services? If not, is there a report available to show the date and time that bids were placed? APWU was assured that if Shared Services posting and bidding cannot comply with LMOU that office will return to manual bidding. Shared Services cannot close bidding at any time other than midnight. Where an LMOU has a different closing time, Shared Services will provide a report to local services showing date and time of all bidders so that bidders who bid after the closing time and date can be disallowed. 10. What instructions are given to local management to accommodate situations when the computer system is down during the bidding window? Shared Services reported that local services and District Transition Coordinator’s were instructed that when the computer system was down, manual bidding would be accepted. Locally developed practices should be clearly communicated to the employees. Award Notices
Considerable discussion about all of the problems and the need to get the draft results reviewed locally before the results can be officially released. Local Services needs to confirm any bidding restrictions, live records, light/limited duty status, etc. Shared Services could not explain why this could be done locally in 3-4 days but now required more than a week to complete. Their fall-back position seemed to be that they “would comply” with the time requirements in Article 37. Where an LMOU provision or binding past practice requires an earlier posting, this will have to be addressed.
In order for this to be done, it will have to be added manually by local services.
Interim Qualifications Report (IQR) (There appear to be different names for this report depending upon the installation, e.g., it is called the “Tuesday Bulletin” in Minnesota and it is called the “Hand-downs and Qualifications Report” in Tampa. It shows the bidders who have qualified and bids that have dropped to a junior bidder since the previous award notice.)
These reports are prepared by local services from data received from Shared Services.
Information is being provided to local services as it becomes available. It is downloaded to local services as available and then compiled into whatever reporting format local services elects on the schedule they elect in order to comply with LMOU’s or binding past practices, etc.
Three (3) working days. Shared Services acknowledged that there had been some problems. They stated that these problems were not “system problems” but “personnel problems” and that they had been corrected. Shared Services refused to provide further detail.
Shared Services acknowledged that there had been some issues with the downloading of qualifications and live records. However, they contended that “qualifications” were the responsibility of local services and that local services was supposed to correct any errors before the bid results were posted.
This is the responsibility of local services. If that information has been historically reported then it is local services responsibility to do so now. Shared Services will not be reporting this.
This is the responsibility of local services. If that information has been historically reported then it is local services responsibility to do so now. Shared Services will not be reporting this.
This is the responsibility of local services. If that information has been historically reported then it is local services responsibility to do so now. Shared Services will not be reporting this.
Shared Services professes to understand the difference for bidding eligibility purposes, etc. and claims to be following the CBA. When a job gets cancelled in one posting and placed in the next one it will likely change from “newly established” to vacant because it was previously posted. When it gets a new job # it will probably show up in the Pre-Vacancy Report as “newly created.” It is the responsibility of the local services to review the PVR and correct this information. Pre-Vacancy Report (PVR)
There is a schedule for the back and forth movement of the various reports. APWU discussed the problems with there being a “date” scheduled but not a time. While response was that this could be done, reading between the lines impression was that everything will be listed as “close of business.”
Local Services will not be given access to enter data into the system and data cannot be downloaded from them. Because of system vulnerability at this time this cannot be accomplished. Seemed to suggest that if upgrade next years moves to web-based this might somehow be accomplished?
New job numbers are being assigned when the job gets a different job title or occupation code. It was acknowledged that some operators have been assigning new job numbers when not necessary. This will be investigated and dealt with. PTF Preferencing
Yes. Shared Services posting and bidding system will be able to accommodate PTF Preferencing, Assignment of Unencumbered Employees and PTR Bidding. This fact has not been shared with local services to date and Shared Services Personnel have not been trained on this. These processes will have to be done locally until Shared Services can get the bidding process done with an acceptable error rate. Communication
Three (3) working days. Shared Services acknowledged that there had been some problems. They stated that these problems were not “system problems” but “personnel problems” and that they had been corrected. Shared Services refused to provide further detail. It was suggested that delays on PTF conversions are occurring because local services fails to include a copy of the grievance settlement.
Information should be accepted and included in Job comments. It appears at this time that they are going to be willing to accept pay location in this section.
USPS HQ Labor Relations.
This question was taken under advisement. We never heard a clear commitment that someone would be made available. They also did not indicate that this could not be done.
Appropriate training will be scheduled. Shared Services insists that local services is being trained and information is being shared in a timely manner. One possible problem – while everything is discussed in terms of District TC’s, let’s not forget that there is an additional level – Area Transition Coordinator’s – through whom everything gets filtered. Uniform and Work Clothes Allowance
This is one of the problems they are currently working on. As a short-term fix Shared Services indicated that local services would be instructed to put uniform and/or clothing allowance in the Job Comments section. Local services will still have to complete the paperwork for processing as always. Shared Services stated a fix would be created to permit uniform and/or work clothes allowances to be included in the bid itself and processed automatically.
No. Local Services is expected to complete the necessary paperwork and forward it to Shared Services. Shared Services will then enter the information into the system and forward the paperwork to St. Louis for processing. Shared Services is currently removing uniform allowance when an employees bids out of SSA duty assignments. They could add the uniform allowance for employees bidding into those assignments but are reluctant to do so now.
Shared Services insists that local services has been trained on the appropriate methodology. If employees aren’t getting their uniform allowance it is because local services is not properly completing the paperwork. Local services should be doing this. It was never expected that supervisors would do so. Additional Questions
33. What is being done about problems employees are currently experiencing withdrawing bids on the computer bidding system?
A fix for this problem has been designed and is being tested. The problem should be fixed by mid August.
34. What instructions have been given to the field about the September migration and its impact on bidding, either in the offices being migrated or already on line?
The system will be unable to accommodate posting or bidding anywhere in the country for a period of five (5) or [more likely] six (6) days while the data for the new sites is migrated into the system, beginning September 15, 2007. The migrating sites were briefed several weeks ago and instructed to meet with their local unions. The existing sites were notified on Friday, August 3, 2007 so they can review impact and meet with their local Unions. The APWU advised USPS that there was no agreement to suspend the posting and bidding requirements in Article 37 for any period of time and that local management would be expected to work out arrangements with the local unions to make certain that the contract was complied with. USPS acknowledged their obligation to follow national and LMOU timeline constraints for posting and bidding.
35. Will the Job Comments section be included in lite blue?
Yes.
36. Are staffing levels at Shared Services adequate to take on the additional sites coming on line September 15, 2007?
Yes. Adequate staff is currently in place and trained. Shared Services anticipates that the staffing is sufficient and no additional problems handling the workload are expected.
|