REGULAR REGIONAL ARBITRATION PANEL

In the Matter of the Arbitration )

) Grievant:
between ) CLASS ACTION
) Post Office:
United States Postal Service ) PORn AND, ME
) Case No:
and ) USPS B90C-IB-C 95014915
) APWU P94057
American Postal Workers Union )

BEFORE: LYNN FREEDMAN c. ,?a"g ~

APPEARANCES: .f\Ls"O
For the Postal Service: THOMAS A. CAIAZZO, Advocate ( '- a
For the Union: JOliN J. RILEY, Advocate (y\ ~ - l I
fl \...l 0.. Ct.'t.6' J
Place of Hearing: PORTLAND. ME. 4\ \~ vd.-
v..
Date of Hearing: JULY 2. 1996

Date of Award=- AUGUSr 2. J 996

Relevant Contract Provisions: ARTICLE 14 & 19

Contract Year: 1990 - ]994

Type of Grievance: CONTRACT

A ward Summary

The grievance is denied. The Union did not establish that the
Service's failure to provide air conditioning units to the Cumberland Center
Post Office violated either Article 14 or Handbook MS-49. In that
Handbook. Section 221.10 sets temperature standards for facilities with
Heating Venting Air Conditioning (HV AC) systems only.

~~ (j LYJI FREEDMAN
 USPS #B90C-lB-C 95014915 & APWU #P940S7

ISSUE

Did the Service violate Article 14 of the National Agreement

when it did not supply air conditioners to the Cumberland
Center Post Office in 19941

If so, what shall the remedy be?

FACTS OF TIlE CASE

The Cumberland Center Post Office is a small essentially one-room

rural post office. In addition to the Post Master there are three (3) Rura1
Letter Carriers, one Ff clerk and two PTF clerks. There are windows on all
sides of the building. The front part contains the customer lobby with the
clerk's window. Behind this lobby, the rear is essentially an open work
area with a swing room tucked into one comer, a lavatory into another and
the PM's office cubicle.
On June 2, 1994, Ellen Call, then the Ole, sent a procurement
requisition (J#3) for two (2) air conditioners which was disapproved on
June J 4th with a recommendation that fans be used instead.
On August 8, 1994, a class action grievance was filed stating that the
readings taken by the clerks from an ordinary store-bought combination
heat and humidity thermometer, from July ) 3, ] 994 through August 6,
1994, clearly indicated an unhealthy work environment affecting both
employees and customers.
During those 22 days. the highest temperature recorded in the work
room was 900 for one full day, five (5) afternoons and once on the
Saturday half-day. The lowest reading was a 120 on August 6th, the last
day of the survey. (U#l)
The humidity readings began on July 21, in the afternoon. with
reading of 75~ rose to a high of 17 at noon on a Saturday, July 30th, and
dropped to a low of. 51 on August 6th. (U#l)
The Union also claimed that four (4) customers had filed 4314s
complaining of the heat and humidity discomfort. (U#2)
Rita Sudbay, Fl' Clerk, testified that during this period the
temperature and humidity made the post office very uncomfortable for
the whole day. She testified that the post office had always been warm
but. with the re-arrangement of the cases due to add-ens, the north wall
windows. where fans used to be sited, were now blocked off. Therefore,
there was a perceptible increase in the discomfort level.
Sudbay also testified to her health condition, that she suffers from
asthma for which she takes medication, that the increase in the

page 2
 USPS #B90C-IB-C 95014915 & APWU #P94057

temperature and humidity has resulted in her becoming nauseous, tired

and increased her asthma discomfort.
On cross examination, Sudbay stated that she did not take any Sick
Leave during that period nor did she provide medical documentation re
the effect on her of the work conditions.
Anne Blaisdell, PT clerk, testified that the post office had one or two
fans during that time period which were not very helpful, tending only to
move the warm air around and stir up dust. She also stated that the
electric outlets were so placed that the fan cords themselves and extension
cords trailed across the flOOT and were a safety hazard.
On cross, Blaisdell testified that she did not remember if she took SL
at that time.
PM Call testified that 1) the office does get hot on occasion, 2)
drinking water is available, and 3) the warmest part of the day is usually
from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm when only the FT clerk and herself are present.
She stated that. in her 35 years in Maine, a prolonged heat spell was very
unusual, and air conditioners are not considered a necessity. .
In regard to her request for air conditioners, J#3, Call stated that she
did obtain an additional fan.
Richard Waldroup, Safety and Health Director, testified that he 1)
was aware of this grievance only re a phone call from the Union. 2) knew
of no rule or standard that defined an unhealthy work climate due to heat
and humidity, 3) did not receive any reports re unhealthy working
conditions from the Cumberland PO during 1994, 4) as far as he knew, no
claim re an unhealthy condition for this Post office had ever been filed, 5)
never called out by Cumberland to verify the 1994 heat and humidity
readings. 6) did not believe that the readings (U#1) could be regarded as
scientifically accurate because appropriate testing by a certified industrial
hygienist was not performed, and 7) believed that, under Art. 14, the
facility was adequate.
On cross examination, Waldroup stated that he had discussions with
the PM re proper installation of fans and had told her I) to use extensions
cords as needed, 2) to tape the cords to eliminate any safety hazards, and
3) to deal with any dust problem by better cleaning. In addition, he
recommended, as far as possible, alter work schedules so that heavy work
is not done during the warmest part of the day and permit employees rest
periods as necessary.

ARGUMENTS OF 1lIE PARTIES

(Note. The parties asked to file briefs in regard to Union exhibit #3. page 3
of Bulletin 21510, April 18. 1985, wherein an item referenced
Maintenance Series Handbook MS-49, Energy Conservation and

page 3
 USPS #B90C-IB-C 9501491S & APWU #P94051

Maintenance Contingency Planning . The briefs were due postmarked no

later that July 15, 1996.)

TIJEUNION

The Union argued that their witnesses, the two clerks, had presented
credible testimony as to unhealthy conditions at the Post Office during July
and August which caused them great discomfort. The Union cited
Sudbay's asthma condition which, it was claimed. was worsened by
exposure to the excessive heat, humidity and dust and Blaisdell's increased
stress and headaches.
The Union contended that the Service's offer of fans would establish
a safety hazard due to the cords straggling all over the floor.
The Union claimed that Waldroup himself considered the heat and
humidity readings very serious as per his recommendations that went
beyond the use of fans.
The Union argued that U#3 and Handbook MS-49, Section 220,
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning, clearly establish a Service
temperature standard of no warmer than 78° in the summer and no cooler
than 65° in the winter for all owned or leased facilities. And, MS-49 states
that it is the Service's responsibility to provide for the safety and health of
employees.
The Union also cited case #C7C-4L-C 35592. Joliet. IL. July-S, 1994,
Arbitrator Nathan, wherein the Arbitrator clearly accepted as a standard
that a temperature ~f 78° triggers appropriate cooling, i.e., air conditioning.
Thus, when this Handbook. Arbitrator Nathan's award and Article 14 are
read together, it is clear that the Service's argument of no standard re a
need for air conditioning is refuted.
The Union concluded that the Service violated Article 14. and the
Handbook when summer temperatures in the Cumberland Post Office rose
above 78°, The Union argued that the Arbitrator has the authority to find
a remedy for a violation and. in this case, argued that the appropriate
remedy is the installation of air conditioners.

TIlE SERVICE

The Service argued that while the July conditions in the Cumberland
Post Office may have been uncomfortable. they were neither unhealthy
nor a safety violation. Further, the recommendation of fans was a
reasonable alternative. since the temperature and humidity conditions did
not reach levels that could be considered unsafe and unhealthy,
The Service maintained that the Union had not produced any
evidence that indicated otherwise. No employee submitted medical

page 4
 USPS #890C-lB-C 95014915 & APWU #P94057

documentation that she/he was adversely affected by the conditions. And.

while cords and extension cords could be a safety hazard, proper taping
would eliminate that contingency.
The Service. referring to the site visit by the Arbitrator and the
Advocates, slated that the temperature that day, 80° - 84°, was
comfortable and typical of the region. Also, the Service argued, individuals
have different heat tolerances so that the reaction of one would not be
indicative of all the employees.
The Service argued that Arbitrator Nathan's award dealt with a
facility that J) had a overall Heating Veining Air Conditioning (HV AC)
system, 2) renovations had chopped up the facility, and 3) created a work
area with no access to workable windows, air conditioning or even
drinking water.
The Service argued that the Cumberland Post Office, with 10 - 12
windows plus 5 - 6 in the lobby area and no HVAC system, was not at all
similar to the facility Arbitrator Nathan had described.
The Service contended that the Handbook MS-49 established" the
Service's energy conservation strategies, that Section 221.10 which
addresses temperature standards, is contained within Section 220-Heating.
Ventilating. and Air Conditioning, which sets standards for the proper
operation of HVAC systems. The Service argued, therefore, that the
standards were only for facilities that had HVAC systems, that smaller
facilities without such a system were not bound by those temperature
standards. The Service maintained that nowhere does the Manual indicate
that 1) certain areas in all facilities must be cooled. 2) prohibit higher
temperatures than stated. and 3) demand that all non-air conditioned
areas be air-conditioned.
In regard to Arbitrator Nathan's award, the Service maintained that
the Joliet facility was subdivided so that the postal facility no longer had
any cooling system access and the work area was isolated from any air
flow or outside ventilation. The Service noted that the facility did have a
HVAC system but the renovations rendered it inoperable for the facility,
therefore, MS-49 was appropriately applied by Arbitrator Nathan.
The Service stated that the Joliet conditions were substantially
different from the Cumberland Post Office. thus, the Union's argument. that
the Joliet case is supportive and persuasive of its claims, simply lacks
merit. The Service argued that the Union had not met its burden of proof
that the Service had violated the National Agreement when it did not
install air conditioners in the Cumberland Post Office and asked that the
grievance be denied.

page 5
 USPS fl890C-lB-C 9.5014915 &. APWU ##P940.57

OPINION & AWARD

The essence of this case is the Union's twofold contentions that the
denial of air conditioners for the Cumberland Center Post Office was 1) a
violation of Article 14, i.e., the working conditions during the summer
created an unsafe and unhealthy environment and 2) a Service violation of
its standards for cooling work areas when the temperature rises to 780
degrees as stated in Handbook MS-49.
The Union cited the testimony of the two clerks as to their
experience with the summer heat. Sudbay did testify that the heat was
uncomfortable. it made her more tired. it aggravated her asthma and
caused her to feel nauseous. On the other hand. she also testified that she
took no Sick Leave during the Summer of 1994 and she did not provide
any medical documentation re heat-induced illness.
Blaisdell testified as to the safety factors aggravated by the
temperature. i.e., dust was stirred by the fans, and fan cords and extension
cords lying loose of the floor. She could not recall if she had taken .any Sick
Leave during that period or had provided any medical documentation.
In this case the Union has the burden of proof. The testimony of
Sudbay and Blaisdell does not support the Union's contentions that the
temperature and humidity constituted violations of Art. 14 as to health
and safety. In regard to these issues, cords can be taped down, the area
can be dusted more efficiently. fans, which may also include ceiling fans,
can be so sited that more relief is available. and, perhaps. the cases can be
re-arranged to permit the more effcient use of window fans. In regard to
Sudbay's asthma condition she was not out on Sick Leave nor did she
provide any medical documentation that her condition was aggravated by
the heat.
Waldroup, the director of safety and health, also included such health
and safety measures as rest periods as needed, scheduling the heavy
physical work when it was cooler, and encouraging employees to maintain
proper fluid intake.
The Service's argument is persuasive in regard to the proper
interpretation of MS-49 and the temperature standards stated therein.
The Handbook clearly puts the Union-cited temperature standards within
Section 220. titled Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning, Section 221,
General Policies. and specifically 221.10, titled Building Temperature
Standards.
The proper usage of the HVAC systems is the subject of all of the
above noted sections. Section 221 states that this section is to address
energy conservation measures re the use of HVAC systems, and 221.10
establishes the proper temperature standards re the use of energy for
facilities with HVAC systems. There is no reference to any temperature

page 6
 USPS 1fB90C-IB-C 95014915 & APWU tlP940S7

standards apart from the usage with a HVAC system. Only temperature
settings for facilities with HVACs are targeted as to maintaining these
temperature guidelines.
Facilities without HVAC systems for cooling. are simply not affected
by the temperature standards established in MS-49. The temperature
standards in the Handbook do not apply to such facilities.
Arbitrator Nathan's award for the Joliet facility. which has a HVAC
system, refers to tbe Service's failure to maintain an appropriate
temperature at the facility. He described the renovation of the facility
which effectively cut off the work place' from the HVAC system resulting in
practically sealing the employees into a box without air flow. without
water, and without any input or connection to the facility'S AC system.
The essential difference in this case from the facility conditions
described in Arbitrator Nathan's award is the fact that this small post
office does not have an HVAC system. that, essentially. windows on all four
sides are the basic air conditioning system while the appropriate use of
fans is encouraged as an extra aid.
While this system may not keep the office at 78°, the higher
temperature of the Cumberland Post Office does not rise to the level of a
violation of Article 14, the existence of an unsafe and unhea1thy work
conditions for the employees.
For all of the above, the grievance is denied.

_-/iI~k__-

page 7