The only consequence of the service reductions that the board claims, apart from the schedule changes, is that tfPs have lost an average of fifteen minutes of work per week. Even if this assertion is accepted as true, neither the House nor the APWU attempts to assert that each TFP in the national bargaining unit received less than its guaranteed minimum of two or four hours of work per week. The reason why the postal service negotiated a contractual provision allowing it to hire TFPs is clearly the fact that it wanted a group of workers whose hours would vary according to the needs of the postal service. The CBA provides that TFPs “work flexible hours, allocated by the employer during a week of service”. CBA Art. 7, para. 1 (A) (2), reproduced in J.A. 59. In addition, the CBA requires that the postal service, if it is to reduce its workforce, “minimize as much as possible the impact on full-time positions by reducing flexible part-time hours.” CBA Art. 12, Sec. 5 (C) (5) (a) (3), reproduced in J.A. 71 (emphasis only). The Board cannot refer to a single contractual provision that Swiss Post has breached in this case.
No employees in the unit were dismissed, no full-time employee worked less than their contractual minimum of forty hours per week, and no part-time employees experienced a reduction in working hours. Any reduction in working time concerned only TFPs, and it is precisely the workers whom the CBA imposes who should bear the effects of these reductions. PMG DEJOY has entered into a contract with the U.S. Postal Service, which you have called a contract of interest to damage the Postal Service, please check and according to the OGA OGI Law does not expect to pay it. The board rejected the postal service`s argument and found that Article 3 did not require the APWU to waive its right to negotiate. Referring to Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708, 103 pp.c.
1467, 1477, 75 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983), the board of directors stated that a waiver of legal bargaining rights must be “clear and unequivocal” in a collective agreement. NLRB, 306 N.L.R.B-642. The board decided that Article 3 of the CBA could not meet this strict standard, either by its plain language or by the interpretation of arbitrators in previous proceedings. . . .