Opinion ID: 204770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Present Dispute is a Tripartite Jurisdictional Dispute

Text: While the term jurisdictional dispute is not defined in any agreement of the parties, their use of the term and contextual clues make it clear that a jurisdictional dispute is any dispute over the question of which craft will get a work assignmentin other words, any dispute over which union's workers are properly staffed on a particular job. That is exactly the kind of dispute at issue here, as it arises out of Trenton Metro's claim that mail handlers have been assigned work on the AFSM-100 machines that should properly have been assigned to clerksa claim that is, in turn, disputed by USPS and NPMHU. Nonetheless, Trenton Metro argues that this is not a jurisdictional dispute because, for there to be a jurisdictional dispute under RI-399, there must have been an operational change [8] and [t]here was no operational change to the AFSM through the implementation of the modifications. [9] (Brief of Cross-Appellant/Appellee Trenton Metro in 08-4084 at 24-25.) While the term operational change is not defined by RI-399, the significant modifications to the AFSM-100which automated a number of processes, resulted in a reduction of the AFSM-100 operating crew, decrease[d] operation run times (App. at 319), and led to tripartite arbitration among USPS, APWU, and NPMHU at the national levelfall within any plain meaning of the term. Trenton Metro counters that the modifications did not impact the remaining work functions and that they therefore did not constitute an operational change. (Brief of Appellee Trenton Metro in 09-1333 at 23-24.) That argument, however, simply ignores the extensive overhaul and automation of the AFSM-100 and the resulting reduction in run times and staffing requirements, all of which has been significant enough to require the USPS, APWU, and NPMHU to engage in national negotiations over altered work assignments. In short, on the undisputed facts, there plainly has been an operational change. Whether the job duties for the remaining workers remain identical and whether that identity should prevent USPS from changing work assignments are part and parcel of the parties' jurisdictional dispute in the wake of that operational change. Having determined that the enhancements to the AFSM-100 have effected an operational change, the next question is whether the AFSM-100 Settlement was intended to, or capable of, resolving the resulting tripartite jurisdictional dispute.