See Brewers – Maltsters , 414 F.3d with 41-42. While the Board of Directors is empowered to interpret collective bargaining… Recognizing that it has the power to interpret collective agreements only in the context of unfair labour practices and that it pursues the importance of the principle of contractual freedom in labour law, the Committee has long pursued a policy of deferral to arbitration when a contract provides for it as a means of resolving disputes. Under the premiere at Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 N.L.R.B 837 (1971) and approved by this Hammontree court against NLRB, 925 F.2d 1486 (D.C Cir 1991) (in bench), if the parties have scheduled arbitration, the House will not begin an unfair work procedure until arbitration has begun. As part of a closely related policy, the Committee also postpones the results of an arbitration procedure as long as these results meet certain general criteria for fairness and consistency with the NRL. See Hammontree, 925 F.2d at 1490-91 (discussion of Council guidelines on honour); See also American Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB, 722 F.2d 828, 831-33 (D.C. Cir. Cir.
1983) (board of directors necessary to follow its policy by rejecting the decision of the appeals committee rejecting the dismissal of dismissed workers); Fournelle v. NLRB, 670 F.2d 331, 341-45 (D.C. Cir. Cir. 1982) (the board of directors necessary to follow its policy following a prior arbitration decision that allows the selective discipline of union officials). Section 15 of the Spoken CBA, which is referred to in this case, sets out detailed arbitration procedures. However, in this case, the Post Office did not argue before the ALJ, the board or the court that the board would have an adjournment of this dispute. Nor has the Post Office argued, at any stage of this case, that the House should adopt a policy of deferral of Sua sponte, and it is not up to us to decide this issue. Although the Chamber is not the last arbiter of contractual disputes, it is clear that in this case the House had the power to interpret the CBA to resolve the pending charge for unfair labour practices. The Board of Directors and the Post Office largely agree on the impact of service reductions on employees in the collective agreement unit. First, the OBRA reductions did not allow staff to be laid off.
Second, the number of full-time workers insured by the CBA forty hours per week has not changed. However, full-time workers could have faced changes to their scheduled days off or reorganized work weeks. Third, the House does not argue that part-time workers worked fewer hours because of benefit cuts. The parties agree that if working time is effectively reduced due to benefit reductions, working time is supported exclusively by the PtUs. In this regard, the House refers to a Post office official`s statement that the average TFSP was working 15 minutes less per week after the introduction of the service reductions. Letter at 8 a.m. (quoting J.A. 28, 225, 1366). The Postal Service disputes that the service reductions were achieved through a decrease in tfSP employment, wear and tear and reduced overtime, and that the 1988 FFP hours were actually higher than in 1987.