U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

19–010

" SENATE ! 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2003

108–112

Calendar No. 235

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 


congress.#13
(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

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 

19–010

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. 

2

1Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91–375. 2 39 U.S.C. 1003. 

3 39 U.S.C. 1004(b). 

4Senate 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. 

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

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

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 proVerDate Jan 31 2003 00:02 Jul 28, 2003 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR112.XXX SR112
3

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). 

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. 8 39 U.S.C. § 1004(a). 

posal 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

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. 

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

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 enhance efforts 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. 

4

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. § 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. 

5

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. 

6

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. § 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 

§ 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 øsupervisors)¿ 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 reVerDate Jan 31 2003 00:02 Jul 28, 2003 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR112.XXX SR112
7

quest 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)).

ø(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; øand¿

(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 organizationø.¿;

(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.

Æ