This case involves the
Union’s challenge to Management’s interpretation of and failure to compensate
Grievant for “travel time” spent moving between his home and a work (training)
facility, other than the Grievant’s official duty station.
The training facility was located approximately 48 miles from the
grievant’s official duty station. The Postal Service claimed that
the training facility was within a 50 mile radius of the grievant’s official
duty station. According to the Postal Service, the Southern California
area is interconnected, not rural, and clearly suburban with its interconnected
commuting patterns and close proximity of residential dwellings to work
locations. A review of the normal travel patterns of employees from Oxnard,
Santa Barbara and Ventura find that they are highly mobile, commute more
often than not, and are part of the same suburban area and not entitled
to travel pay
The Union correctly contended
that the training was outside the suburban area immediately surrounding
the Oxnard Plant and was not within the local commuting area as provided
for in ELM 438. Training in this case occurred at the Santa Barbara Plant,
which is not within the local commuting or suburban area of Oxnard, an
approximate 47.99 miles distance.
The arbitrator wisely
sustained the Union’s grievance and awarded the grievant 1.5 hours of
compensation for all time spent in a travel status for the duration of
the training program.
The arbitrator correctly
interpreted the relevant handbooks as well as the Collective Bargaining
Agreement sections that address the issue of travel when he dismissed
the Postal Service’s attempt to demonstrate its “interconned” theory.
This newly created Postal term has never been bargained for nor do the
applicable handbooks, manuals, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
permit the use of this term in determining whether an employee is entitled
to pay for travel. Given the above the arbitrator ruled:
After a careful analysis
and consideration of the evidence presented, arguments of parties, and
review of numerous arbitral decisions and maps of the geographical areas
involved, the Arbitrator finds for the Union. Goleta is not within the
Grievant’s local community area. The Grievant is entitled to receive travel
pay as requested from his official duty station (Oxnard) to his official
travel destination (Goleta) pursuant to ELM Section 438. Notwithstanding
that Grievant’s travel commute was within the authorized 50 mile travel
radius (47.99) from Oxnard to Goleta, it cannot be said by any stretch
of the imagination or can it be considered, that Oxnard is a suburb of
Goleta [Santa Barbara]. More persuasive is an argument that Oxnard is
a suburban area immediately surrounding Los Angeles, than Oxnard being
a suburban area that immediately surround Goleta-Santa Barbara. The commuting
pattern of this interconnected suburban area flows southward towards Los
Angeles in greater numbers on a daily bases, rather than northward out
of the commuting area, towards the Goleta-Santa Barbara area. Although
the Arbitrator agrees with Arbitrator Klein (Case No. J94C-4J-C 9708784)
that a “suburban area immediately surrounding the employee’s official
duty station does not require that the geographical locations border each
other,” the Arbitrator is not likewise inclined to find, based on lack
of geographic proximity, that the Northern Goleta [Santa Barbara] area
is within the suburban area “immediately surrounding” Grievant’s Southern
California Oxnard duty station.
As more fully summarized
by Arbitrator Eaton, supra, when presented with a similar “pay for travel”
case in Northern California:
“Thus, while the Postal
Service in the present dispute attempts to reiterate the argument that
the 50 mile radius should be the controlling factor, both the language
of the relevant handbooks and manuals and the arbitration cases interpreting
those provisions make it clear that the 50 mile radius alone is not the
controlling factor. The “suburban area” test must also be applied, and
the Postal Service argument fails that test in this dispute.”
Accordingly, for the
reasons stated above, the Union’s grievance is sustained.