[Senate Report 108-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 235
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-112
_______________________________________________________________________
POSTMASTER EQUITY ACT OF 2003
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 678
TO AMEND CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE 39, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCLUDE
POSTMASTERS AND POSTMASTERS' ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PROCESS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING OF CERTAIN POLICIES, SCHEDULES, AND PROGRAMS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
July 25 (legislative day, July 21), 2003.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Ann C. Fisher, Deputy Staff Director
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Nanci E. Langley, Minority Deputy Staff Director, Subcommittee on
Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 235
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-112
======================================================================
POSTMASTER EQUITY ACT OF 2003
_______
July 25 (legislative day, July 21), 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 678]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 678) to amend chapter 10 of title 39,
United States Code, to include postmasters and postmasters
organizations in the process for the development and planning
of certain policies, schedules, and programs, and for other
purposes, having considered the same reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Regulatory Impact Statement......................................4
V. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............6
I. Purpose and Summary
The bill would amend chapter 10 of title 39, United States
Code, to include postmasters and postmasters organizations in
the process for the development and planning of certain
policies, schedules, and programs. It would provide to the
nation's postmasters the same rights as those afforded to
postal supervisors.
II. Background
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (PRA),\1\ which
established the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as an independent
establishment of the executive branch, created a framework for
collective bargaining by labor organizations over pay,
benefits, and working conditions. In particular, the Act
established a process for binding arbitration when the USPS and
one or more of its unions could not agree on what constituted
``comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for
comparable levels of work in the private sector of the
economy.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-375.
\2\ 39 U.S.C. 1003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRA also provided that USPS would have ``a program for
consultation with recognized organizations of supervisory and
other managerial personnel who are not subject to the
collective-bargaining agreements . . . (and that) such
organization or organizations shall be entitled to participate
directly in the planning and development of pay policies and
schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs related
to supervisory and other managerial employees.'' \3\ The Senate
committee report did ``not recommend collective bargaining for
supervisory personnel, postmasters, or administrative employees
in the headquarters or regional offices of the Postal
Service,'' but did ``define `participation' as meaning
precisely that--to have share in planning and developing the
programs.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 39 U.S.C. 1004(b).
\4\ Senate Report 91-912, pp. 6-7, as quoted in Legislative
History, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, ``Postal Supervisors' Arbitration,'' H. Rept. 96-234, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postmasters are the managers-in-charge of the nation's
individual post offices. There are approximately 27,000
postmasters who are accountable for postal operations and
services, including retail postal operations and community
relations. Some postmasters manage mail-processing facilities
and letter carrier annexes within a particular post office's
jurisdiction. All are responsible for the management and
supervision of personnel and postal operations under the
authority of a particular post office. Generally, postal
supervisors are individuals who supervise employees who process
mail and who deliver mail. They may work in plants, post
offices, or stations. They may also be mid-level and senior
managers in functional areas of the Postal Service, including
marketing, finance, human resources and maintenance. The key
distinction between a postmaster and a supervisor is that
front-line supervisors tend to be supervised by a postmaster at
a post office and that the postmaster is the ``manager-in-
charge'' of the post office. These two groups of managers are
under the same pay and compensation system, but they discuss
these issues separately with the Postal Service.
During the 1970s, while the wages of craft employees were
rising under the binding arbitration provisions, the National
Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS) believed their
salaries were not keeping pace and that the differential
between supervisors and employees was being eroded. NAPS
brought three lawsuits against the Postal Service, contending
that USPS did not seriously engage with the association on
wages and benefits, but simply framed a proposal and
implemented it after a pro forma consultation.\5\ The United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit eventually decided
in favor of USPS, holding that USPS had broad discretion in
setting compensation levels for supervisory and other
managerial employees. In addition, the court held that the
Postal Service meets its obligation under section 1004(b) of
title 39 if it gives NAPS an opportunity to analyze and
criticize proposed compensation decisions, and then supplies
NAPS with the reasons for rejecting any criticisms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Association of Postal Supervisors v. United States
Postal Service, doc. no. 77-1684 (D.C.C.A.), June 14, 1979.
\6\ 602 F.2d 420 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this situation, Congress passed H.R. 827, which
became Public Law 96-326 on August 8, 1980. The Act established
a fact-finding process for resolving disputes that now
constitutes 39 U.S.C. 1004(c). It requires the convening of a
fact-finding panel to consider disputes over pay and benefits
and to make recommendations to the Postal Service. It does not
provide for arbitration of such disputes, nor are the
recommendations binding on the Postmaster General. It also
limited fact-finding to pay and benefit programs. In the Senate
report accompanying H.R. 827, the Committee on Governmental
Affairs said that it recognized that many of the supervisors'
concerns had merit--particularly with respect to pay increases
that lagged behind those achieved by rank and file employees
through interest arbitration.'' \7\ Since passage of H.R. 827,
negotiations between NAPS and USPS have been reasonably
constructive, and a fact-finding panel has never been convened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, report
to accompany H.R. 827, S. Rept. 96-856, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before enactment of Pub. L. 96-326, postmasters and their
management organizations were subject to the same consultation
and participation provisions as were postal supervisors.
However, with the enactment of this statute, the changes were
limited to supervisors. This left postmasters with no avenue to
resolve disagreements with Postal Headquarters. The postmasters
organizations have found that the inability to seek third-party
review of disagreements has limited their ability to have
meaningful discussions with Postal Headquarters on issues
relating to pay and benefits. In fact, like postal supervisors
before them, the lack of fact-finding has precluded a fair pay
differential between postmasters and craft employees, as
required by law.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 39 U.S.C. Sec. 1004(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no reason for postmasters and supervisors to be
treated differently with regards to the pay and benefits
discussions with the USPS. Both postmasters and supervisors are
front line managers who supervise postal employees, and are
currently paid under the same compensation schedule. The
Committee hopes that enactment of this legislation will
encourage postmasters and the USPS to have good faith
discussions over pay and benefits, and enhanceefforts to
recruit and retain postmasters. This is important as there are areas of
the country where USPS has had difficulty recruiting qualified
individuals to assume the position of postmaster. The lack of qualified
postmasters affects the Postal Service's ability to perform its primary
mission of delivering the mail to all addresses throughout the United
States.
Without the option of fact-finding, postmasters have only
their consultative rights that provide for discussion on
compensation and working conditions. As a result, Postal
Headquarters can make unilateral decisions on these issues,
with or without agreement by the nation's postmasters. S. 678
would extend to the nation's postmasters the rights and options
currently enjoyed by postal supervisors in negotiating with
Headquarters. Fact-finding, as noted, is a process that allows
for an unbiased review of the issues in dispute and the
issuance of non-binding recommendations. Without this right,
postmasters lack any form of recourse when consultation fails.
The bill would also define the term ``postmaster'' for the
first time by noting that a postmaster is an individual who is
the manager-in-charge of the operations of a post office, with
or without the assistance of subordinate managers or
supervisors.
III. Legislative History
S. 678 was introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator
Susan Collins on March 20, 2003, and was referred to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs. No hearings were held on S.
678. On June 17, 2003, the Committee met in open session.
Senator Akaka offered a substitute amendment to conform the
bill to H.R. 2249, the House version of the bill, introduced by
Representative John McHugh. The amendment was accepted and the
Committee ordered favorably reported the bill S. 678, as
amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. Senators
present were Collins, Lieberman, Voinovich, Coleman,
Fitzgerald, Sununu, Akaka, Durbin, Carper, Lautenberg, Levin,
and Pryor.
IV. Regulatory Impact Statement
Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill
evaluate the ``regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out this bill.'' The Committee has determined that the
enactment of this legislation will not have significant
regulatory impact.
V. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and with section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 653, the
Committee sets forth the following cost estimate with respect
to S. 678 submitted to the Committee by the Congressional
Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2003.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 678, the Postmasters
Equity Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 678--Postmasters Equity Act of 2003
S. 678 would afford postmasters of the U.S. Postal Service
the same rights as postal supervisors regarding the negotiation
of pay, benefits, and other personnel issues. Based on
information from the Postal Service about its current treatment
of postmasters, CBO estimates that implementing the bill's
provisions would lead to an insignificant change in the
agency's net cost. (Cash flows of the Postal Service are
classified as off-budget.) The legislation would not affect
revenues.
S. 678 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets on state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Short title
This Act will be known as the ``Postmasters Equity Act of
2003.''
Section 2. Postmasters and postmasters' organizations
Amends Section 1004 of Title 39, United States Code, to
ensure that postmasters' organizations can engage in fact-
finding similar to other supervisory organizations as it
relates to the planning and development of pay policies and
schedules, fringe benefit programs and other programs. The bill
provides that if an agreement cannot be reached on such
programs, the postmasters' organization may request the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to convene a fact-
finding panel. If two postmasters' organizations exist, the two
shall be treated as one entity for the purposes of convening
the fact-finding panel and shall be jointly and severally
liable for the cost of such panel, apart from the portion to be
borne by the Postal Service. The FMCS will provide a list of
seven individuals recognized as experts in supervisory and
managerial pay policies to serve on the fact-finding panel. One
member shall be selected by the Postal Service, one by the
postmasters' organizations, and the third (the chair of the
panel) by the two individuals previously selected. The panel
would make recommendations on pay and benefit policies. The
Postal Service would then issue its decision on the matter
giving full and fair consideration to the panel's
recommendations.
The bill defines the term postmaster and postmasters'
organization. The postmaster is defined as the manager-in-
charge of the operations of the post office while a
postmasters' organization is an organization consisting of no
less than 20 percent of all individuals employed as
postmasters.
The bill also provides that this section will have no
effect on the role both postmasters' organizations play on the
Thrift Advisory Council as detailed in 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 8473(b)(4).
Section 3. Effective date
The Act would take effect 60 days after the date of
enactment.
VII. Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with clause 12 of rule XXVI of the Rules of
the United States Senate, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
TITLE 39. POSTAL SERVICE
PART II. PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 10. EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE POSTAL SERVICE
Sec. 1004. Supervisory and other managerial organizations
(a) * * *
(b) The Postal Service shall provide a program for
consultation with recognized organizations of supervisory and
other managerial personnel who are not subject to collective-
bargaining agreements under chapter 12 of this title. Upon
presentation of evidence satisfactory to the Postal Service
that a supervisory organization represents a majority of
supervisors, that an organization (other than an organization
representing supervisors) represents at least 20 percent of
postmasters, after majority of supervisors, or that a
managerial organization (other than an organization
representing [supervisors)] supervisors or postmasters)
represents a substantial percentage of managerial employees,
such organization or organizations shall be entitled to
participate directly in the planning and development of pay
policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other
programs relating to supervisory and other managerial
employees.
(c) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) In order to ensure that postmasters and postmasters'
organizations are afforded the same rights under this section
as are afforded to supervisors and the supervisors'
organization, subsections (c) through (g) shall be applied with
respect to postmasters and postmasters' organizations--
(A) by substituting ``postmasters' organization'' for
``supervisors' organization'' each place it appears;
and
(B) if 2 or more postmasters' organizations exist, by
treating such organizations as if they constituted a
single organization, in accordance with such
arrangements as such organizations shall mutually agree
to.
(2) If 2 or more postmasters' organizations exist, such
organizations shall, in the case of any factfinding panel
convened at the request of such organizations (in accordance
with paragraph (1)(B)), be jointly and severally liable for the
cost of such panel, apart from the portion to be borne by the
Postal Service (as determined under subsection (f)(4)).
[(h)] (i) For purposes of this section--
(1) ``supervisors' organization'' means the
organization recognized by the Postal Service under
subsection (b) of this section as representing a
majority of supervisors; [and]
(2) ``members of the supervisors' organization''
means employees of the Postal Service who are
recognized under an agreement between the Postal
Service and the supervisors' organization as
represented by such organization[.];
(3) ``postmaster'' means an individual who is the
manager in charge of the operations of a post office,
with or without the assistance of subordinate managers
or supervisors;
(4) ``postmasters' organization'' means an
organization recognized by the Postal Service under
subsection (b) as representing at least 20 percent of
postmasters; and
(5) ``members of the postmasters' organization''
shall be considered to mean employees of the Postal
Service who are recognized under an agreement--
(A) between the Postal Service and the
postmasters' organization as represented by the
organization; or
(B) in the circumstance described in
subsection (h)(1)(B), between the Postal
Service and the postmasters' organizations
(acting in concert) as represented by either or
any of the postmasters' organizations involved.