What Arbitration Is — and What It Is Not

Arbitration is the final step of the grievance procedure under Article 15 of the USPS-NALC National Agreement. When a grievance cannot be resolved at Step A (Informal and Formal) or Step B, either party can appeal it to arbitration. A neutral third party — the arbitrator — hears evidence and arguments from both sides and issues a binding decision.

This is not a courtroom. There is no judge, no jury, and technically the rules of evidence you see on TV do not apply. That said, arbitrators still expect you to present evidence that is relevant and reliable — they are not going to let either side introduce garbage. Think of it as a less formal hearing where the rules are looser but common sense still governs. The hearing is typically held in a conference room at a postal facility or a hotel meeting room. The atmosphere is less formal than a trial, but the stakes are just as real: the arbitrator's award is final and binding on both parties. There is no appeal within the grievance procedure.

What makes postal arbitration distinctive is its role as the enforcement mechanism for the contract. Every provision in the National Agreement, every MRS settlement, every JCAM interpretation — they mean nothing if they can't be enforced. Arbitration is where enforcement happens. It is the reason management cannot simply ignore the contract without consequence.

When Cases Go to Arbitration

A grievance reaches arbitration only after it has moved through the lower steps without resolution. Under Article 15, the typical path is: Informal Step A (discussion between steward and supervisor), Formal Step A (formal meeting, written statement), Step B (regional dispute resolution team), and then — if Step B cannot resolve it — the case is appealed to arbitration.

Most grievances never make it this far. The majority are resolved at Step A or Step B through settlements. Arbitration is expensive and time-consuming for both sides, so there is a strong incentive to settle. But some cases must go to arbitration — either because the issue is too important to compromise on, because the parties genuinely disagree about what the contract means, or because management refuses to comply with clear contract language.

There are two tracks for arbitration. Regional arbitration handles cases that involve local or regional disputes — an individual discipline case, a route adjustment grievance, a local overtime violation. National arbitration handles cases that raise issues of national interpretive significance — questions about what the contract means that would affect every NALC member nationwide. National arbitration decisions carry far more weight as precedent.

How Arbitrators Are Selected

Arbitrators are not assigned by a court or a government agency. They are selected from panels maintained jointly by NALC and USPS. Each region has its own panel of arbitrators, and both parties must agree on who hears each case. The typical selection process involves a striking method: the parties review the available panel members and alternately strike names until one arbitrator remains.

National-level cases are heard by a separate, smaller panel of national arbitrators — senior, experienced neutrals who both parties trust to decide issues with nationwide implications. Some of the most significant postal arbitration decisions in CREA's database come from national arbitrators whose names every steward should recognize:

• Benjamin Aaron — issued landmark rulings on office time and route inspection standards, including C-03207 on the floor for evaluated office time.
• Sylvester Garrett — one of the earliest national arbitrators, whose decisions in the late 1970s established foundational principles still cited today. C#01503A-B (1977) is among the early sustained cases in the database.
• Howard G. Gamser — defined the remedy standard for overtime equitability violations in NC-S-5426 (1979), requiring a showing of "willful disregard" for the Gamser remedy to apply.
• J. Fred Holly — handled numerous discipline and contract interpretation cases in the 1980s and 1990s.
• Nicholas H. Zumas — known for detailed, carefully reasoned decisions on discipline and contractual compliance.
• Elliott H. Goldstein — decided cases like C#01670A-C (1981), where the union's thorough documentation of management's punitive medical certification requirements across three carriers led to a sustained grievance.
• James F. Scearce — prolific arbitrator whose decisions span discipline, attendance, overtime, and seniority disputes.

Knowing who these arbitrators are — and how they tend to reason — is part of being a well-prepared steward. Arbitrators develop track records. Some are known for strict adherence to contract language. Others give more weight to equitable considerations. When your case is assigned to a particular arbitrator, knowing their history helps the advocate prepare.

How an Arbitration Hearing Works

The hearing itself follows a structured format, even though it is less formal than a court proceeding. Here is what to expect:

Preliminary matters. The arbitrator opens by confirming the issue to be decided (the "stipulated issue") and any procedural matters. Both parties agree on the statement of the issue, or if they cannot agree, the arbitrator frames it.

Opening statements. Each side gives a brief overview of their case. This is not the time for detailed arguments — it is a roadmap for the arbitrator so they understand what evidence is coming and why it matters.

Presentation of evidence. This is the core of the hearing. Witnesses testify, documents are submitted as exhibits, and both sides have the opportunity to cross-examine the other side's witnesses. The order of presentation matters:

• In discipline cases (removals, suspensions, letters of warning), management presents first. This is because management bears the burden of proving just cause — they must show that the discipline was warranted before the union needs to respond.
• In contract violation cases (overtime disputes, route adjustment grievances, seniority bidding issues), the union typically presents first. The union is asserting that management violated the contract, so the union goes first to lay out the violation.

Cross-examination. After each witness testifies on direct examination, the other side gets to cross-examine. This is where preparation matters enormously. A well-prepared advocate will have studied the documents and can expose inconsistencies in the other side's story. A poorly prepared case falls apart under cross-examination.

Closing arguments or post-hearing briefs. At the end of the hearing, both sides can make closing arguments orally, or the arbitrator may allow written post-hearing briefs (typically due 30 days after the hearing). Complex cases almost always involve briefs, which allow both sides to make detailed legal arguments citing prior arbitration decisions as precedent.

The decision. The arbitrator issues a written award, typically within 30 to 60 days after the hearing (or after post-hearing briefs are submitted). The award states the arbitrator's findings of fact, their reasoning, and the remedy (if the grievance is sustained).

Burden of Proof: The Most Important Concept

If you understand nothing else about arbitration, understand this: who bears the burden of proof determines who has to convince the arbitrator.

In discipline cases, management bears the burden of proving "just cause" for the discipline. This means management must demonstrate that the employee committed the alleged offense and that the level of discipline was appropriate. The union does not have to prove innocence — management has to prove guilt. If management fails to carry this burden, the grievance is sustained even if the union's defense is imperfect.

Most arbitrators evaluate just cause using seven questions from Arbitrator Carroll Daugherty's 1966 Enterprise Wire decision (46 LA 359). They boil down to this: (1) Did the employee have adequate warning? (2) Is the rule reasonable? (3) Did management investigate before issuing discipline? (4) Was the investigation fair and objective? (5) Is there substantial proof of guilt? (6) Were the rules applied equally to everyone? (7) Is the penalty appropriate for the offense? If management cannot check every one of those boxes, the discipline does not hold up.

In contract interpretation cases, the burden falls on the party asserting the violation — which is usually the union. If the union claims management violated Article 8 on overtime or Article 12 on reassignment, the union must prove the violation occurred. This means the union needs to come with evidence: clock rings, schedules, TACS reports, PS Forms 3996, management admissions, contract language, and precedent.

This distinction is critical for case preparation. In a discipline case, your job is to poke holes in management's case — show that their investigation was sloppy, that the rule was not consistently enforced, that the punishment was disproportionate. In a contract violation case, your job is to build an affirmative case — show exactly what happened, what the contract says, and why one contradicts the other.

What Makes a Strong Arbitration Case

After reviewing thousands of arbitration decisions in CREA's database, clear patterns emerge in what separates cases that win from cases that lose.

Documentation wins cases. This is the single most important factor. The steward who gets PS Forms 3996, clock rings, TACS reports, schedule postings, and management admissions into the file at Step A gives the advocate something to work with at arbitration. The steward who writes "management violated the contract" on the PS Form 8190 and attaches nothing gives the advocate a losing case.

Witness testimony matters. Arbitrators weigh the credibility of witnesses. A carrier who can testify clearly and consistently about what happened is more persuasive than a stack of documents alone. Prepare your grievant and any witnesses: make sure they know what they saw, what they heard, and what they did. Do not coach them on what to say — coach them on how to be clear.

Contract language is the foundation. Every argument at arbitration starts with the contract. Cite the specific article and section. Cite the JCAM interpretation. Cite the relevant MRS settlement. Arbitrators give the most weight to the plain language of the agreement, followed by established interpretations.

Precedent from prior arbitrations gives your argument credibility. When you can show that other arbitrators have already decided the same issue the same way, you make the current arbitrator's job easier. Real examples from the database:

• C#01503A-B (Arbitrator Sylvester Garrett, 1977) — One of the early landmark cases in the database. Garrett sustained the grievance, establishing principles that later arbitrators continued to build on. Early decisions like this one carry particular weight because they set the foundation for decades of subsequent rulings.
• C#01670A-C (Arbitrator Elliott H. Goldstein, 1981) — Three carriers were placed on punitive medical certification requirements for single-day absences based solely on their sick leave usage history. The union documented the pattern across all three employees and consolidated the cases. Goldstein sustained the grievance, finding management abused its documentation authority. The lesson: when you can show the same violation happening to multiple carriers, consolidate and present the pattern together.
• C#00022 (Arbitrator Peter Seitz, 1979) — This case involved wildcat strike discharges — one of the most serious situations a carrier can face. Even in this difficult factual context, the arbitrator sustained the grievance in part. It demonstrates that even cases that look unwinnable can produce partial relief when the union advocates effectively and identifies procedural or proportionality arguments management overlooked.

Common Outcomes and What They Mean

Arbitration decisions fall into a few categories, and the numbers from CREA's database give a realistic picture of what to expect:

• Sustained (~18% of cases) — The union wins. The arbitrator finds that the contract was violated (in contract cases) or that discipline was not for just cause (in discipline cases). A sustained decision typically includes a remedy: reinstatement, back pay, cease-and-desist, make-whole relief.
• Sustained in Part (~6%) — The union wins on some issues but not all, or the arbitrator modifies the remedy. In discipline cases, this often means the arbitrator finds just cause existed but the penalty was excessive — for example, reducing a removal to a long suspension.
• Denied (~38%) — Management wins. The arbitrator finds that the contract was not violated or that just cause existed for the discipline. A denial is final — there is no further appeal within the grievance procedure.
• Remanded (~2%) — The arbitrator sends the case back to the parties for further proceedings, additional evidence, or further negotiation on the remedy. This is uncommon but happens when the arbitrator finds a violation but cannot determine the appropriate remedy on the existing record.

The remaining cases have outcomes classified as withdrawn, settled at hearing, or carry other procedural dispositions. These numbers tell you something important: arbitration is not a coin flip. The outcome depends heavily on the strength of the case as built by the steward and presented by the advocate. Cases with strong documentation and clear contract language have substantially better odds than cases that rely on equitable arguments alone.

Preparing a Case File for Arbitration

If your case is heading to arbitration, here is how to prepare a file that gives the advocate what they need:

1. Organize evidence chronologically. Start with the earliest relevant event and build forward. Include dates, times, and the names of everyone involved. The advocate needs to reconstruct what happened in a clear narrative.
2. Prepare witness statements. For each witness, write a summary of what they observed and what they can testify to. Identify which facts each witness can establish. Note any witnesses who may be reluctant or who management might also call.
3. Pull the relevant contract language. Identify every article and section that applies. Include the JCAM interpretation for each provision. If there is an MRS settlement (Step 4 decision, MOU, or policy letter) that addresses the issue, include it with its M-number.
4. Find supporting arbitration precedent. Search for prior arbitration decisions on the same issue. Decisions from the same region or the same arbitrator are most persuasive. National-level decisions are binding precedent. Regional decisions from other areas are persuasive but not binding. This is where CREA's database of thousands of cases spanning 1970–2025 is most useful — finding on-point precedent that the advocate can cite in argument or in a post-hearing brief.
5. Include the grievance file. Every document from every step: PS Form 8190, Step A resolution attempts, Step B decision, management's position statements, any information requests and responses, and all supporting exhibits submitted at each step.
6. Note the weaknesses. Every case has them. Identify the weakest parts of your case so the advocate can prepare to address them rather than being surprised. If the grievant has a prior disciplinary record, note it. If there is a fact management will argue differently, note it. If there is a procedural issue (late filing, missing signature), note it.

The Steward's Role vs. the Advocate's Role

At arbitration, the NALC typically sends a trained advocate — often a national business agent, a regional grievance assistant, or a staff attorney — to present the case. The steward does not present the case at arbitration. But the steward's work is the foundation of everything the advocate does.

Here is how the roles connect:

At Informal Step A, the steward investigates the facts, interviews the grievant and witnesses, gathers initial documentation, and frames the issue. This is where the case is born. A thorough investigation at Informal A produces the evidence that will be submitted as exhibits at arbitration months or years later. A sloppy investigation at Informal A creates gaps that can never be filled.

At Formal Step A, the steward presents the union's position in writing, submits evidence, and attempts to resolve the grievance. The PS Form 8190 and the evidence package from Formal A become part of the arbitration file. What you write on that form, what documents you attach, and what arguments you make — all of it goes before the arbitrator.

At Step B, the case is reviewed by the dispute resolution team. If it is not resolved, it is appealed to arbitration. At this point, the advocate takes over presentation. But the advocate is working with what the steward built. If the steward got the clock rings, the TACS reports, the witness statements, and the contract citations into the file, the advocate has material to work with. If the file is thin, the advocate is fighting with one hand tied behind their back.

The best stewards think about arbitration from the moment they take the grievance. They ask themselves: if this case goes all the way, will the evidence I am gathering now hold up? Will the arguments I am making now still be persuasive before an arbitrator? That mindset — building every case as if it might go to arbitration — is what separates effective stewards from the rest.