Corey begins “The Lion’s Den” by informing listeners that he will be pre-recording the upcoming “From A to Arbitration” episode due to his attendance at the Texas State Convention. He then emphasizes his desire to keep “The Lion’s Den” episodes focused and relatively short, though he anticipates today’s will be longer due to reading arbitration sites. He references last week’s episode where he played a teleconference recording, highlighting the “disdain” and “incompetence” of upper management towards city letter carriers, and reiterating his long-held belief that they need to be more aggressive in their approach. Corey stresses the importance of education within the union and mentions that the incoming CLC leadership will bring a more militant and offensive approach.
Corey then dedicates the majority of the episode to reading and analyzing three arbitration sites. He explains that reading arbitration decisions is a crucial self-education tool, allowing one to understand management’s arguments, the union’s positions, and the arbitrators’ decisions. The first case, from February 2009, deals with the Postal Service’s use of DOIS (Delivery Operations Information System) projections to set carriers’ daily office and street times, and whether this created a hostile work environment. Corey notes how management’s arguments then are remarkably similar to current ones, particularly regarding PET and DOIS. He meticulously breaks down the union’s and management’s arguments, as well as the arbitrator’s findings, highlighting how the misuse of DOIS primarily as a basis for setting leave and return times and the resulting stressful environment violated the M-39 handbook and related settlements.
The second case, from 2015, addresses similar issues of management using DOIS projections as the sole determinant of carriers’ leaving times and the practice of announcing all mail is up before it’s actually distributed, leading to undue stress. Corey reads the facts, the parties’ positions, and the arbitrator’s discussion and findings, emphasizing how these practices created an impossible situation for carriers. He draws parallels to the current use of PET and the denial of 3996s.
The third arbitration site, from 2019, focuses on the removal of a CCA for “unsatisfactory performance,” specifically for exceeding projected times. Corey highlights how management failed to provide evidence of actual misconduct or time-wasting habits, instead relying solely on DOIS/PET projections. He points out that management did not conduct proper street observations or gather evidence like 4584s or 1838-Cs to support their claims. Corey concludes by reiterating the importance of these arbitration sites for understanding arguments, contractual language, and management’s tactics, and promises to continue educating the membership on these critical issues.