Opinion ID: 6316278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Field Employees

Text: In September 2017, the Postal Service sent a proposed pay package to the Association for its “Field” EAS employees for fiscal years 2016 to 2019 (“Field Pay Package”). In the months following, the Postal Service consulted with the Association on the package via meetings, letters, and emails. The Postal Service rejected most of the Association’s recommendations and issued a final decision in summer 2018. It did not provide any reasons for rejecting the Association’s recommendations. The Association requested that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service convene a factfinding panel to review the Field Pay Package. It contended the Field Pay Package violated the Act’s requirements for setting adequate and reasonable pay differentials between supervisory and rank-and-file employees, id. § 1004(a), and for maintaining compensation and benefits comparable to those in the private sector, id. §§ 101(c), 1003(a). The Association alleged the five percent “Supervisory Differential Adjustment” included in the package resulted in thousands of supervisors earning less than persons who they supervised because the Postal Service used a lower paid clerk position as the benchmark for this differential instead of a 8 higher paid (and more populous) carrier position. In addition, the Association claimed that many clerks and carriers received more total compensation than supervisors because they earned overtime at higher rates and after fewer hours than their supervisors, and they also received larger and more regular pay increases. Regarding comparability, the Association alleged that the Postal Service took no steps to compare compensation or benefits to the private sector before issuing the initial Field Pay Package. Only after the factfinding panel was convened did the Postal Service hire a consultant to evaluate pay (but not benefits or other compensation) for eight out of 1,000 positions. The Association further alleged that the Postal Service did not consider high-wage locations or provide locality pay, refused to offer bonuses, and did not adjust pay in line with inflation or market increases as is done in the private sector. The factfinding panel held a two-day hearing in December 2018 and issued its unanimous findings in a report in April 2019. It found that the Supervisory Differential Adjustment method used by the Postal Service had, in many instances, resulted in unreasonable and inadequate pay differentials. Regarding comparability, the panel concluded that the Postal Service had violated the Act’s comparability requirement by issuing a final decision on the Field Pay Package without conducting any market survey into private compensation. It further concluded that the Postal Service method for determining pay increases, “as constructed and implemented by the [Postal] Service, does not satisfy the statutory criteri[on] of comparability.” Compl. ¶ 26, J.A. 11. The factfinding panel made recommendations for bringing compensation for supervisors into conformance with the Act. 9 See id. ¶ 68, J.A. 20. Approximately two weeks after the factfinding report was issued, the Postal Service rejected most of the recommendations and issued a final decision adhering to the differential and comparability conclusions in the original Field Pay Package.