Postmaster Setting Unrealistic Expectations May Serve As Grounds To File EEO Complaint
Connie Williams, a city carrier at the Hennessey Oklahoma Post Office alleged that she was subjected to discrimination based on her sex, age, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was harassed by her postmaster. The Postal Service dismissed the complaint claiming that Williams was not harmed. On appeal Williams argued she was harmed, and contended that the harassment continued. The EEOC found that the claimed actions of the postmaster, including setting unrealistic expectations for the amount of time for the employee to prepare and complete delivery of her route, were sufficient to state a claim of discrimination and reversed the Postal Service’s decision. Williams v. Potter- February 5, 2009
Note: As this EEO case points out: .. a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may be predicated on either of two types of sexual harassment — (1) harassment that involves the conditioning of employment benefits on sexual favors, and (2) harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment.
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment. The Court explained that an “objectively hostile or abusive work environment [is created when] a reasonable person would find [it] hostile or abusive” and the complainant subjectively perceives it as such. Harris,. Thus, not all claims of harassment are actionable. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition or privilege of employment, a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment.
The following are excerpts from Williams EEO complaint:
In her June 24, 2008 complaint, complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination based on her sex (female), age and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was harassed from March 2, 2008, to the present by her postmaster.
Much of the claimed harassment was the postmaster setting unrealistic expectations for the amount of time complainant had to prepare and complete delivery of her route, and repeated close monitoring and observation of her at the post office and on her route, Complainant claimed these unrealistic expectations forced her to walk at an uncomfortable pace, and skip lunch and breaks. When she did not meet the postmaster’s expectations or engaged in allegedly time wasting activity, the postmaster allegedly kept up his intensive monitoring, pressured complainant with comments, threatened her with corrective and disciplinary actions, and on May 14, 2008, gave her a negative route evaluation.
To a lesser extent, complainant alleged that the postmaster harassed her about work practices relating to safety and a form. She raised an incident of the postmaster getting angry with her for not timely submitting and completing a form estimating route time, and warning her for not setting the emergency brake on her truck.
In her complaint, complainant also alleged that the postmaster discriminatorily inquired about her schedule with her second employer. The postmaster was trying to determine if complainant was working a second job while on sick leave. She also claimed that her request to come in early on April 16, 2008 so she would not have to use annual leave was denied by the postmaster, resulting in having to use leave. Complainant claimed that on April 21, 2008, the postmaster only granted a request for sick leave after she told him her doctor would speak to him personally if necessary.
Complainant also alleged in her complaint that the postmaster told offensive jokes. She also claimed therein that on several occasions he got very physically close to her while monitoring her, bringing her work, and retrieving things. She wrote that he once brushed up against her hand and another time up against her while he was reaching. Complainant contended this was unnecessary, and was sexual harassment.
The final agency decision dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It reasoned complainant was not harmed. On appeal, complainant argues she was harmed, and contends the harassment is continuing. She alleges that the monitoring and comments about her productivity continue. She indicates that on or about October 15, 2008, the postmaster gave her a formal discussion for failure to signal and leaving a truck security door open, and also told her she was did not properly lift nor properly wear her seat belt. She alleges that the postmaster requires her to bring in medical documentation to account for each time she is off work due to stress. She also submits a letter of warning by the postmaster dated November 3, 2008, for failure to immediately report an injury to her back and deviating from her route.
The claimed actions of the postmaster setting unrealistic expectations for the amount of time for complainant to prepare and complete delivery of her route, coupled with repeated frequent intensive monitoring and observation of her and pressuring her with comments, threats of corrective and disciplinary actions; and a negative route evaluation state a claim. If these actions occurred as claimed and are discriminatory, this could alter the conditions of complainant’s employment. Complainant contends the above forces her to walk at an uncomfortable hurried pace, and to skip lunch and breaks. The remaining claimed actions are part of the harassment claim, i.e., the postmaster using his supervisory relationship to create a hostile work environment for complainant. This includes the incidents regarding denial of change of schedule, leave matters, comments about complainant’s safety practices and the form, the October 2008 formal discussion, the November 3, 2008 letter of warning, and the alleged sexual harassment and jokes.
USPS Pilot Program With UPS Is Underway
The USPS-UPS pilot program extending USPS Parcel Return Service (PRS) to participating UPS business customers (Link, 2/4) is under way. UPS has named the service “UPS Returns Flexible Access.”
The pilot lets customers return qualified parcels with UPS or the Postal Service. These parcels have a label that combines elements of the UPS ground and Postal Service’s Parcel Return Service labels. This means that even if — at first glance — the label looks like it came from UPS, the Postal Service should accept it.
Post Offices designated as Return Delivery Units (RDUs) for this pilot program should have received a letter from UPS and training on specific back office procedures to hold and scan the parcels. Employees at a facility that has not been designated as an RDU for this program should not scan these packages before forwarding them with other outgoing mail.
To determine whether the package is part of UPS Returns Flexible Access, employees should read from the bottom up to check for the USPS-PRS label. All employees need to know what the label looks like and be prepared to accept these parcels.
Customers can give a parcel using this label to their carriers, leave them in a mailbox for carriers to pick up or drop them in a collection box or at the Post Office. And because these are PRS packages, customers also can use the Carrier Pickup option available on usps.com.
“If we do this right, we can build volume and that will give us more PRS packages to accept, collect and process,” said Vice President, Ground Shipping, Jim Cochrane. “Parcel Return Service has generated significant new revenue since it launched in 2003, and retailers count on us to process returns correctly. Keeping these simple processes in mind will help us serve customers better as more of them learn about — and use — this great service.”
Click here for an image of a poster with information on UPS Returns Flexible Access.
source: USPS News Link
Legislation Introduced To Make It Easier To Rehire Federal Retirees
From Government Executive:
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., introduced two bills on Tuesday to make it easier for agencies to bring back and retain retirees to meet the government’s critical workforce needs. The first bill would allow federal retirees to return to work without having their salaries reduced by the amount of their pension payments. The second piece of legislation would grant employees under the Civil Service Retirement System who work part-time instead of retiring pro-rated credit that would count toward their annuity payments. read full story
Here’s a summary of the three bills introduced this week:
The Older Worker Opportunity Act of 2009, sponsored by Senators Kohl and Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Many older workers seek workplace flexibility in order to pursue hobbies or visit the grandkids, and many need flexibility to care for a loved one. This bill would diminish the barriers to part-time work for older workers, such as loss of health coverage and decreased pension benefits, by providing a tax credit for employers that employ older workers (age 62+) in flexible work programs. The credit equals 25 percent of an older worker’s wages, and expires after 2012. To be eligible, employers must (1) provide a qualified pension plan and (2) provide health insurance coverage and pay at least 60 percent of its cost. A “flexible work program” provides a full- or part- time flexible work schedule and full pension and health care benefits. This arrangement must be available to an older worker for at least one year and must be widely available to rank and file employees.
A bill to make it easier to rehire federal annuitants, sponsored by Senators Kohl and Susan Collins (R-ME).
This bill would allow the federal government to rehire federal retirees part-time, without forcing the employee to reduce their salary by their pension amount, as under current law. While the individuals would receive both salary and annuity payments, they would not be considered employees for the purposes of retirement and would receive no additional retirement benefits based on their service.
A bill to allow phased retirement for federal employees under the CSRS, sponsored by Senators Kohl and George Voinovich (R-OH).
This legislation would change the computation of Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuities involving part-time service by correcting an anomaly that creates a disincentive for employees nearing the end of their careers who would like to phase into retirement by working part-time. Specifically, the legislation would clarify that CSRS annuities, based in whole or in part on part-time service, should be pro-rated for the period of service that was performed on a part-time basis. The correction allows agencies, as part of their succession planning efforts, to retain the expertise of senior staff who wish to work on a part-time basis at the end of their federal careers.
USPS OIG’S Review Of Postal Managers Unnecessary Purchases
From the USPS Office of Inspector General
This report presents the results for our fiscal year (FY) 2008 review of U.S. Postal Service imprudent spending using the SmartPay Purchase Card .
Employees have made, and are continuing to make, imprudent and unnecessary purchases during a time of severe economic uncertainty in the Postal Service. While such purchases are generally not in direct violation of Postal Service policies, they conflict with the Postal Service’s objective of driving down costs in all operations and processes. Moreover, the public’s view of such imprudent purchases could have a detrimental effect on the Postal Service’s public image due to the perception that the agency is using funds from sales of stamps to purchase expensive items.
Imprudent Purchases Made by Postal Service Employees
Employees have made purchases, primarily gifts and items for meetings, which we believe are imprudent and unnecessary during a time of severe economic uncertainty in the Postal Service. In a recent report on the Postal Service’s progress in the areas of network strength, realignment planning, accountability, and improved communication, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated the Postal Service “must increase efficiency and decrease costs across all its operations” in order to respond to declining mail volumes. In addition, the Vice President, Controller, has directed employees to “continue efforts to control expenses” by making “prudent choices and deferring or eliminating non-critical activity.” Some examples of imprudent purchases we identified follow.
Employees put these purchases into the eAwards System (eAwards):
1. Electronic and household items such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS), navigational systems, video game consoles, camcorders, digital cameras, personal computers, printers, an espresso machine, and a TiVo® system given as employee awards/recognition, purchased in late fall 2007, and costing a total of $93,234.
2. Thirteen 23-inch high-definition televisions given as employee awards, purchased in fall 2007, and costing $6,435.
3. Three designer watches given as employee awards, purchased in fall 2007, and costing $4,370.
Employees did not put these purchases into eAwards:
4. Carnival type games and amusements for an employee appreciation and family day event, purchased in fall 2007, and costing $7,995. Cardholders are not required to put purchases related to employee appreciation into eAwards.
5. A 2-day year-end meeting held in November 2007 by one area costing $26,884, including the cost of breakfast, lunch, and dinner; meeting rooms; audio-visual equipment; and incidentals such as baggage handling and gratuities for 60 people. The purchase included lodging for 14 attendees whose duty station was less than 50 miles from the meeting place. Cardholders were not required to put these purchases into eAwards since this was a business meeting and not an employee recognition award event.
6. Tickets for sporting events, purchased in late fall 2007 and winter 2008, costing a total of $28,498. These purchases included a professional basketball game that 450 employees attended and where they received food and hats, and season tickets for a major league baseball team. Cardholders were not required to put these purchases into eAwards because the per ticket cost was less than $50.
We found the documentation supporting the purchases listed above and others did not always provide sufficient detail to identify the number of items purchased, the number of people attending events or recognized for awards, or the specific purpose or reason for the purchase. Without extensive testing, it is not possible for management or the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) to determine the extent to which some of these purchases (i.e., events) occur because they are not always tracked separately.
Items of value – such as GPS and navigational systems, electronic appliances, watches and gift cards – are captured in eAwards. Some of the purchases we identified – tickets to sporting events, business meetings and appreciation days – are associated with recognition or events; therefore, they are not required to be put into eAwards. As cited in a recent OIG report, expenses associated with internal and external events (meals, refreshments, employee recognition gifts, gift cards, et cetera) should be separately tracked to facilitate transparency and accountability.
In addition to the types of purchases noted above, we identified spending for food and meals made using Purchase Cards totaling over $7 million in FY 2008. However, we did not include specific examples in our report, as the Postal Service recognized the need to strengthen its policy in this area and recently issued a management instruction that provides additional guidance. The Postal Service travel policy states that anyone in travel status must deduct all meals provided from their per diem expense. Managers told us that meals are provided only under specific circumstances, often to ensure that people in travel status are available for a meeting for the maximum amount of productive time. We plan to continue to monitor these purchases throughout FY 2009 to determine whether the new management advisory is effective.
Although most of the purchases we tested were not in violation of Postal Service purchasing procedures, the nature of the purchases is in direct conflict with the Postal Service’s objective of driving down costs in all operations and processes. In addition, due to the perception that the Postal Service is using funds from stamp sales to purchase expensive items, this kind of imprudent spending could damage the Postal Service’s public image (goodwill). Both managers and those with awards approval authority should consider the costs of the awards and the perception of these awards to outside individuals. The imprudent purchases we identified represent items of value that are above and beyond employee salaries and bonuses.
We believe a reduction in purchases is feasible based on our analysis of Purchase Card data from October 2006 through September 2008. In fact, chart 1 shows that in Quarter 4, FY 2008, purchases decreased to an average of $24 million per month, down from an average of nearly $32 million per month for the first 9 months of FY 2008. We believe this is due to a recent emphasis on cost cutting, and further reductions are possible to realize additional cost savings by emphasizing the need to limit the amount of spending on non-cash items.
Footnote: There were 183,208 award transactions and $43,633,292 recorded in eAwards for 183,208 career and non-career employees during FY 2008, compared with a total of 765,088 career and non-career employees
see also
USPS Seeking Home-Based Independent Contractors For EEO Investigations
From Federal Business Opportunities website
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is soliciting individuals with the right skill sets and availability to invest numerous hours a week to conduct EEO investigations in accordance with EEOC regulations and USPS quality and timeliness standards. Selected individuals will be home-based independent contractors, located throughout the United States, who will enter into Ordering Agreements with the USPS to provide investigative services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement. Individual Task Orders assigning the investigation of particular complaints of discrimination may be issued under the Ordering Agreement in a “fee for service” arrangement. There is no guarantee of work or the number of cases assigned. An investigator is paid on a “per case” basis, generally $1100, on successful completion of the case. The attached document lists computer system/software, education and experience requirements for USPS contract EEO investigators. It also provides instructions to interested individuals on how and where to submit resumes and narratives that will be used to select the contract investigators.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=72d0cc1190319e8e0380fdda58dae757&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=
Changes In Store For Postal Bulk Mail Center Network
From the National Postal Mail Handlers Union
Subcontracting Is Off the Table
The USPS has informed the NPMHU of changes that they intend to make to the existing BMC network. According to USPS Headquarters, they intend to move forward with a new network which will utilize the existing BMCs as “Network Distribution Centers” (NDCs) to more efficiently process and transport the mail. The plans shared with the Union thus far call for three tiers of BMCs (NDCs), with each tier having different responsibilities. This new initiative eliminates the earlier USPS plan to subcontract much of the BMC work.
According to the USPS plan, Tier 1 BMCs (NDCs) will lose some volume because some of the mail that is currently being processed there will be rerouted to Tier 2 facilities.
The concept will be tested first, most likely in the Northeast Area, and involves three Bulk Mail Centers (Springfield, Philadelphia, and New Jersey). Springfield and Philadelphia are expected to be “Tier 1 NDCs,” and New Jersey is expected to be a “Tier 2 NDC.”
Further details regarding mail processing, transportation, staffing and other issues will be circulated to the Local Unions shortly. Discussions are ongoing with USPS Headquarters, and we will update you as further details become available.
See also Postal Service to Revamp Bulk Mail Center Network from PARCEL
Statement of NALC President On Compliance with National Agreement
In a recent NALC Bulletin, President Young stated that he encourages cooperation with USPS because “the current financial crisis requires cooperation, where appropriate.” Even so, he declared, “[n]o one, at any level, has any authority to amend or violate the national contract, period.” PMG Potter agrees: “It is up to each one of us to make sure that the changes we bring to the organization are changes for the better,” Potter recently wrote. “Respecting and protecting the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements will help us to do that.” PMG Potter Memo To Managers (PDF)
Let Let me make the following clear to one and all, including Postal Service management at headquarters and in the field, and all letter carriers, at every level in the union and in every post office: No one, at any level, has any authority to amend or violate the national contract, period.
I continue to receive calls from branch officers who inform me that local managers have approached them and attempted to secure agreements to violate the national contract. These same managers have the audacity to suggest that I am cooperating with the Postal Service and that they should, too!
The plain fact is that I encourage cooperation with the Postal Service because I realize the current financial crisis requires cooperation, where appropriate.
If any manager approaches you with a suggestion for creative ooperation, advise them to send their ideas to USPS headquarters, which will then make the determination whether to present such ideas to us. Some of the ideas floating around now are not grounded in common sense. For example, the idea of prohibiting all carriers from working their nonscheduled day off, and then requiring non-ODL carriers to work overtime is a clear violation of the contract – one we will stop through the grievance procedure, and one that will cost the USPS dearly in the end. We must be mindful of the critical difference between contract amendment/contract violation on the one hand, and creative, positive cooperation on the other.
William H. Young
NAPUS Takes Issue With PRC’s “Public Rep” Suggesting USPS Privatize Its Retail Offices
From National Association of Postmasters of the United States (NAPUS)
On February 12, 2009 NAPUS filed reply comments with the Postal Regulatory Commission in response to a document that the Commission Public Representative submitted in early February. In this February 2cd document, the Representative suggested that the USPS privatize “most of the Postal Service’s tens of thousands of retail offices…”. NAPUS questioned the wisdom of privatization, in which the PRC’s own analysis concluded that only $586 million would be saved with the closure of every small Post Office. NAPUS believes that such action would compromise universal service to rural areas, without doing much to improve the economic sustainability of the United States Postal Service.
More from NAPUS on same issue…
NAPUS filed Reply Comments with the Postal Regulatory Commission, in response to a document that the Commission Public Representative submitted in early February. The link to NAPUS’ comments at the PRC website is http://www.prc.gov/Docs/62/62263/ACR2008ReplyComment.pdf.
In the February 2 document, the Representative suggested that the USPS privatize “most of the Postal Service’s tens of thousands of retail offices …” The PRC proceeding, in which the Public Representative was participating, concerned the Postal Service’s 2008 Annual Compliance Report.
In our reply comments, we took a multi-pronged approach to rebut the Public Representative’s position. Based upon the extensive hearing record produced by PRC, as part of its Universal Service Obligation and the final report, NAPUS challenged the Representative’s credibility as actually representing the “public.” The PRC found that Post Offices are vital to the universal service network. In our reply comments, we pointed out that privatizing Post Offices would be contrary to established law, which maintains that closing or consolidating post offices solely for economic reasons is prohibited. A privatized retail facility can be closed or consolidated without community input or prior notification. Finally, we questioned the wisdom of privatization, in light of the fact the PRC’s own analysis concluded that only $586 million would be saved with the closure of every small Post Office. NAPUS believes that such a draconian action would compromise universal service to rural areas, without doing much to improve the economic sustainability of the USPS.
Conclusion of NAPUS comments filed with PRC
Post Offices are the bedrock of the United States Postal Service’s universal service obligation. Our Founding Fathers recognized this fact, when they explicitly referenced the establishment of Post Offices in the U.S. Constitution. In our times, far-flung towns across this Nation understand the economic and societal importance of their Post Offices, sustaining their viability and sense of community. A facility without protection against arbitrary termination, devoid of qualified postal management, and lacking essential postal services to which communities are entitled fails to satisfy this Nation’s obligation to provide universal mail service. In sum, post office privatization does not reflect the public’s views about the Postal Service. Yes, now is the time for action. Enough is enough! Now that the management associations have vehemently spoken out against the individual and organizational bullying of employees, I believe, it is critical that the management associations also work in concert with the four national postal unions to help ensure that dramatic and lasting action is implemented to improve the postal culture. One way of making this a reality is for the three management associations and four union organizations to reach agreement on how to enlist the support of Congress to reform the postal culture and then act on it. Congress will be more apt to listen and act quickly if they all “speak” with one voice.
USPS Reports Net Loss of $751 Million in January 2009
USPS reported earlier this month that Postal Service Ends First Quarter With Loss Of $384 Million. The text of the 8-K report filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) on February 19, 2009 shows USPS has lost over $1.1 billion thus far in Fiscal Year 2009.
The U.S. Postal’ Service (USPS) previously announced a loss for the quarter ending December 31,2008, in an 8K filed on February 9,2009. USPS discloses that its unaudited January 2009 financial results were an estimated $5.80 billion in revenue and $6.55 billion in expenses, resulting in an estimated net loss of $751 million. This loss compares to a loss of $44 million in January 2008, which resulted from total f:evenue of $6.58 billion and total expenses of $6.62 billion. Mail volumes declined by over 1(5% in January 2009 from January 2008. The January results continue to illustrate that the downward pressure on the Postal Service business continues into 2009.
USPS’ First Quarter Overview as reported to PRC on February 9, 2009
o Volume decline of 5.2 billion pieces, or 9.3°k, driven by the economic recession
o Eighth consecutive quarter of accelerating volume declines
o Revenue decline of $1.3 billion compared to Q1, FY 2008
o 27 million fewer workhours used -reduction of 7.5°k
o Some cost benefit from low inflation, but significant cost pressure from labor wage increases
No Fourth Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment For Postal Workers
From NALC:
Fourth Contract COLA: -0-
There will be no fourth cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for letter carriers this period, under the terms of the 2006-2011 National Agreement. That’s because there was no increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between July 2008 and January 2009, based on figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) February 20,
The next COLA—the fifth under the contract—will be based on any increase in CPI from January to July 2009. The last COLA was $1,497 in September 2008.
There are eight COLAs included in the 2006-2011 agreement.
From APWU:
In January, the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) rose to 612.719, still well below the July 2008 index of 644.303 (upon which our last COLA was based). After the final month of the six-month measuring period, the fifth COLA under the 2006 National Agreement and the Operating Services Agreement will be zero.