USPS blaming cheap envelopes for a spate of damaged Christmas cards
The U.S. Postal Service is blaming cheap envelopes for a spate of damaged Christmas cards this holiday season.
Inexpensive envelopes made by a Scranton, Pa.-based paper company jammed letter-processing machinery, said Rich Watkins, spokesman for the Kansas City-based U.S. Postal Service Mid-America District.
Requests for comment from the Paper Magic Group Inc. were not returned on Thursday.
The processing and distribution center located in the Main Post Office at 500 West Chestnut Expressway saw a spike in jams due to the envelopes, Watkins said.
Opinion: USPS In Top Five Of Business Blunders For 2010
Is this an opinion on the “Top 5 Business Blunders of 2010″ or a way to promote a newly released book?
Although 2010 won’t be remembered for colossal corporate bankruptcies or bailouts, the year still saw its fair share of business failures, many due to self-inflicted wounds. My Top 5 Business Blunders includes businesses that, through every fault of their own, have failed to remember and implement core business
principles.5. United States Postal Service: A Failure of Management –It might seem unfair to start the list with a government bureaucracy. However, the USPS is that rare government bureaucracy that performs a valuable business service (as opposed to an administrative service) for everyone and doesn’t receive any tax revenue to operate. In other words, the USPS is supposed to function like a business.
Facing both technological and competitive obstacles, the USPS lost $8.5 billion in 2010. Part of the problem is that the USPS has 535 CEOs, otherwise known as Congress, who stymie any serious structural reform. But the USPS is also burdened with outdated procedures, infrastructure and staffing that fail to focus on real customer needs.
USPS Challenges NALC Arbitration Award – Court Sends Case Back to Arbitrator
On or before July 23, 2009, NALC filed a grievance alleging that USPS violated a local memorandum of understanding and Article 8 of the National Agreement when scheduling letter carriers to work overtime.
note: The grievance was initially filed by a NALC branch in Ohio.
Arbitrator Virginia Wallace-Curry heard the grievance and issued an award in favor of NALC on April 30, 2010. In her decision, Arbitrator Wallace-Curry held that the period of liability extended from July 13, 2009, through the date of her award, April 30, 2010. The award expressly acknowledges that NALC only presented evidence up to August 4, 2009.
USPS filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an order vacating that portion of an April 30, 2010 arbitration decision awarding damages for the period August 5, 2009, to April 30, 2010. USPS was not challenging the arbitrator’s decision that it violated the National Agreement and the Local Memorandum of Understanding, nor the award of damages for the period July 13, 2009, through August 4, 2009.
USPS argued:
The award is not within the arbitrator’s authority as defined by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
The award fails to “draw its essence” from the collective bargaining agreement because the arbitrator awarded damages based on no evidence of liability for the period of time from August 5, 2009 to April 30, 2010.
In summary, USPS argues that the portion of the arbitrator’s decision awarding damages from August 5, 2009 forward must be vacated because there was no evidence presented at the arbitration past August 4, 2009. NALC maintained that the arbitrator must have heard and credited evidence of a continuing violation past August 4, 2009, and that the Court should simply remand the case back to the arbitrator to clarify this point.
The District court ruled:
The Court agreed in part and disagreed in part with each side, and determined to vacate and remand that portion of the arbitrator’s decision awarding monetary damages AFTER August 4, 2009. The Court’s role in this matter is to determine whether the record sufficiently supports the arbitrator’s factual findings, AK Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 163 F.3d 403, 407 (6th Cir. 1998), and to make sure that the arbitrator did not act beyond her authority by entering an award that lacks rational support. DBM Technologies, Inc. v. Local 227, United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 257 F.3d 651, 659 (6th Cir. 2001). The date of the incident that precipitated the grievance was July 13, 2009. The problem with the arbitrator’s decision is that she specifically states that “[t]o illustrate the ongoing nature of the grievance, the Union presented evidence up [sic] August 4, 2009,” but two sentences later finds, without any evidentiary support, “[t]he dates from July 13, 2009 to the date of this award must be included in the remedy.”
It is axiomatic that to support an award of damages past August 4, 2009, there must be evidence to support a violation past that date. There may have in fact been evidence produced during the arbitration which the arbitrator credited to support this conclusion, but the arbitrator stated that evidence was produced only through August 4. There was no transcript made of this arbitration, so the Court is not in the position to resolve this factual issue. An additional concern is that there is no indication that the record was supplemented after the hearing, so there seems to be no conceivable basis for an award of damages from the date of the hearing (February 9, 2010) to the date of the decision (April 30, 2010).
Accordingly, the Court VACATES that portion of the arbitrator’s decision awarding monetary damages for the period August 5, 2009, through April 30, 2010, and REMANDS this matter to the arbitrator. If the arbitrator wishes to award monetary damages past August 5, 2009, all she need do is recite that evidence was produced during the arbitration establishing a violation by USPS continuing up to and including the date she is awarding monetary damages
APWU: USPS Announces Changes To ‘Mystery Shopper Program’
APWU Web News
After years of APWU complaints, the Postal Service has notified the union that the Mystery Shopper Program will be altered beginning in January 2011. Retail Associates (RAs) will no longer be required to follow a precise script when waiting on customers; instead they will be permitted to “customize their questions to best address individual customer needs.”
The questions have been a source of frustration, both to window clerks and the mailing public, in part because RAs were required to ask every customer mailing a package a litany of questions – even customers they knew well and whose needs they understood.
APWU Clerk Craft Director Rob Strunk praised the decision. “Finally, a manager with authority has realized that our Sales and Service Associates can determine on their own an appropriate method for communicating with our customers.
“The Mystery Shopper program has been misused, abused, and violated in so many ways,” he said. “We can go forward now demonstrating our professionalism.”
The Mystery Shooper program, which was recently renamed the Retail Customer Experience Program, has been a source of contention between the union and management since its inception. The program relies on management designees posing as customers and scoring retail clerks based on adherence to the script.
According to management’s Dec. 27, 2010, letter, the Product Offerings and Product Explanation categories will no longer be scored, and scoring in other categories will be revised.
NAPUS: Suspension of Postmaster Convention Leave to Continue
NAPUS President Bob Rapoza has received a response from Postal Service Vice President of Labor Relations, Doug Tulino, concerning our discussions on Postmasters’ convention leave for 2011. Mr Tulino said that Postmasters’ convention leave, as outlined in Section 519.62 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual) (ELM) will continue to be suspended through FY2011.
Mr Tulino said that the convention leave cost the Postal Service more than $4 million dollars in 2008 and more than $12 million for the 3 preceding years. He also cited the $8.5 billion dollars loss the Postal Service faced in FY2010 as another reason to continue the suspension of the leave. He assured NAPUS that the Postal Service will continue to authorize Postmasters annual leave to attend conventions.
Charlie Moser
source: NAPUS
Postal Worker Loses Lawsuit Claiming USPS Violated Privacy Act And Fraud On the Court
The following is PostalReporter’s summary of several cases related to the same issue:
Darrell Coburn sued the United States Postal Service claiming that the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, was violated when records from the file on his administrative complaint of discrimination were disclosed internally to several management employees. USPS was seeking evidence of a management employee representing a craft employee which is against postal policy. After a bench trial the district court found that the Postal Service did not make any unauthorized disclosure and entered judgment against Coburn. Coburn appealed to the Court of Appeals which upheld the District Court’s decision. Coburn filed again arguing that the Postal Service committed fraud by submitting an alleged “bogus” document to the court. The court ruled that Coburn was untimely and therefore the Court of Appeals decision stands.
This legal saga started when Darrell Coburn a 19-year Forest Park, IL letter carrier was placed on Emergency Off-Duty status on January 27, 2004.
On February 9, 2004, Coburn was issued a Letter Of Warning for conduct unbecoming of a postal employee which occurred on January 27, 2004.
On February 11, 2004 Coburn filed National Labor Charges against the Postal Service and Former Forest Park Postmaster Migna Sanchez for unfair labor practices and whistle-blowing activity..
On February 12, 2004, Coburn was issued a 14-day suspension for “Failure to Properly Secure A Postal Vehicle.”
On February 19, 2004, Coburn was told that on February 23, 2004, he was being sent for letter carrier re-training at another Post Office.
In 2005, Coburn filed an administrative complaint alleging employment discrimination. Coburn was told that he could select another employee to represent him during the administrative process. However, Postal Service policy precludes management employees from representing craft employees like Coburn, a letter carrier. In spite of the policy, Coburn enlisted his friend Cecil Watson, a management employee, who knew about the policy from his supervisor. When the supervisor later heard that Watson had served a summons on the United States Attorney in a lawsuit filed by Coburn against the Postal Service, he asked a postal official to investigate whether Watson was violating the policy against representing craft employees.
The postal official contacted the personnel employee with custody over the file from Coburn’s administrative complaint, who turned the file over to the postal official. From that file the postal official culled six documents referring to Watson as Coburn’s personal representative.
The postal official turned those documents over to Watson’s supervisor, who cited them in a proposal to his supervisor that Watson be fired. It is these disclosures that Coburn alleged USPS violated the Privacy Act.
In September 2008, after a bench trial on Coburn’s claims, the district court granted judgment for the Postal Service. It found that the employees lawfully viewed Coburn’s records under an exception to the Privacy Act that permits access when employees have a “need for the record[s] in the performance of their duties.”
The Privacy Act generally precludes an agency from disclosing records pertaining to an individual who has not consented in writing to the disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). But several categories of disclosures are explicitly authorized in the statute, including disclosures “to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” The district court found that the disclosures here fit this exception.
Coburn countered that his records were disclosed to persons who did not maintain them, and thus the disclosures fell outside the “need to know” exception. But the court said that Coburn misread subsection (b)(I). It is enough that the persons to whom disclosure is made are employees of the agency that maintains the records and that those employees have a need for access; disclosure under this subsection is not limited to the employees responsible for maintaining the records.
Coburn also argued that the Postal Service employees who obtained his records did not need to access those records in the course of their duties. To show this, he cites a vacancy announcement for the position held by the postal official, who obtained the file from the personnel employee and passed along six documents to Watson’s supervisor after first clearing that action with agency counsel. Coburn correctly notes that the vacancy announcement does not mention as a job duty investigating allegations of employment discrimination. But a vacancy announcement would not be comprehensive, and, regardless, the employees to whom the records were disclosed testified that their duties did include investigating alleged misconduct by management employees. The district court believed them, and our job on appeal is not to reweigh the credibility of trial witnesses. Coburn does not otherwise fault the scope or manner of the disclosures, so our analysis may end here.
In February 2010, nearly 17 months after the district court entered its judgment, Coburn filed a motion to vacate in light of new evidence suggesting that the Postal Service and its counsel engaged in fraud on the court. The Postal Service committed fraud, Coburn argued, by using a misleading memo at his bench trial to justify accessing his file. The memo explains that Postal-Service policy bars management employees (such as Watson) from representing craft workers (such as Coburn) in administrative proceedings against the Postal Service. But such memos, Coburn contended, are informational only and should not be treated as official policy of the Postal Service, and in support he pointed to a 1989 employee manual that he characterizes as newly discovered evidence. He also cited a 1996 employee handbook listing five conflicts of interest for employee representation, none of which stated that management employees could not represent craft employees. Therefore, he concluded, Watson did not engage in wrongdoing by assisting him with his complaint, and Postal-Service employees had no need to access his administrative file. The district court denied Coburn’s motion, determining that the one-year statute of limitations under Rule 60(b)(3) had passed and that Coburn did not allege the egregious fraud on the court necessary to succeed under Rule 60(d)(3).
Coburn does not challenge the district court’s finding that his motion under Rule 60(b)(3) was time-barred. Such motions must be brought within one year of the judgment the party seeks to vacate, and Coburn was untimely in waiting almost 17 months after the judgment to file his motion.
Coburn argues that the district court erred in finding that the Postal Service did not defraud the court because, he contends, it overlooked the Postal Service’s “bogus document”—the memo regarding Postal-Service policy. Fraud on the court, which is not subject to the one-year statute of limitations, may include inserting fraudulent documents into the record, but Coburn has not pointed to any evidence to suggest that the memo itself—or the way the Postal Service used it at trial—was fraudulent. Nor has he explained how the mere existence of the 1989 manual undermines the memo’s authenticity.
Coburn also asserts for the first time on appeal that counsel for the Postal Service engaged in fraud by allowing witnesses to perjure themselves through testimony about the memo. But he waived that argument when he did not present it to the district court. And even if he had not, his argument would still fail because here too he does not point to anything in the record to support his claim. Because the purported fraud was not “conduct that might be thought to corrupt the judicial process itself,” the district court properly denied the motion.
We add, however, that a plaintiff can win a Privacy Act suit for damages only if he demonstrates that the violation was intentional or willful. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(4); Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 423 F.3d 512, 522 (10th Cir. 2005); Moskiewicz v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 791 F.2d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 1986). Even if the disclosures had been unauthorized, the employees who were involved reasonably believed that they were allowed access to Coburn’s file as necessary to investigate possible misconduct by Watson. The district court,in its findings of fact, made clear that it believed there was no intent to violate the Privacy Act, and that finding is not clearly erroneous. See Remapp Int’l Corp. v. Comfort Keyboard Co.,No. 08 3282, 2009 WL 750222, at *3 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2009). Accordingly, even if there had been a technical violation, Coburn still would not recover.
USPS Seeking Suppliers For Next Generation Retail Software System
From Federal Business Opportunities
This Notice is for small, minority and woman-owned business sub-contracting opportunities
The Postal Service has issued a solicitation for the Next Generation Retail System Software (Next Gen RSS). This software will be utilized across all of the retail Point of Sale platforms. USPS is seeking Software, Software Maintenance, Software Support, and Help Desk Support across the continental United States. This is a competitive solicitation with prequalified suppliers. The award is subject to funding availability and the proposal received.
Posted Date:
December 23, 2010
Response Date:
Jan 31, 2011 1:00 pm Eastern
Alabama Postal Employee Indicted For Stealing Mail
Press Release from the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District Of Alabama
December 29, 2010
BIRMINGHAM – A federal grand jury today indicted a Madison man for stealing mail while he worked for the U.S. Postal Service, announced U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance and Postal Inspection Service Inspector/Domicile Coordinator Frank Dyer.
The one-count indictment filed in U.S. District Court charges MARK SHAWN STACY, 41, with stealing letters and packages entrusted to him to deliver while he worked as a mail clerk at the Huntsville Downtown Post Office between Feb. 1 and Feb. 15, 2010.
“The ability to safely and efficiently deliver products and correspondence through the Postal system is fundamental to our economy and way of life,” Vance said. “The United States Postal Service has been entrusted with this vital task, and when a Postal employee violates that trust, it must be met with appropriate sanctions. Americans rely on the integrity of the mail system. That integrity must be maintained,” she said.
The maximum sentence for Theft of Mail Matter by a Postal Employee is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Special agents with the U.S. Postal Service Office of the Inspector General investigated the matter. Assistant U.S. Attorney Terence M. O’Rourke is prosecuting the case.
Members of the public are reminded that the indictment contains only charges. A defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government’s burden to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
2011 Prices For USPS Shipping Services Begin Jan. 2
New flat-rate products debut Jan. 2 along with new prices for Priority Mail, Express Mail and other Shipping Services changes. The overall price change for all Shipping Services products, which are adjusted each January, is 3.6 percent.
Extending the popularity of Priority Mail Flat Rate products, a new legal-size flat-rate envelope measuring 15-by-9.5 inches and a padded flat-rate envelope measuring 12.5-by-9.5 inches, both priced at $4.95, will be available Jan. 2. All six types of Priority Mail Flat Rate envelopes will be priced the same as the regular Priority Mail Envelope (12.5-by-9.5 inches) at $4.95, including the Gift Card Flat Rate Envelope, Window Flat Rate Envelope, and the Small Flat Rate Envelope.
Pricing for the Express Mail Flat Rate Envelope will remain unchanged at $18.30, and will be joined by a new Express Mail Legal Flat Rate Envelope (15-by-9.5 inches) offered at that same price.
In addition to an overall price change of 3.5 percent for Priority Mail, new prices for Express Mail, Global Express Guaranteed, Express Mail International, Priority Mail International, Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service also take effect Jan. 2.
The popular Hold For Pickup service option — currently available for Express Mail only — is now extended to Priority Mail and First-Class Mail commercial parcels. Packages with the Hold For Pickup endorsement are shipped directly to a Post Office instead of being left at a recipient’s address. Packages are then held at the Post Office until picked up, anytime during office hours, at a time convenient for the recipient.
And, for Commercial Base and Commercial Plus customers mailing regionally, a new Priority Mail Regional Rate Box — available in two sizes — offers zone-based pricing with the “If it Fits it Ships” concept. Volume thresholds for Commercial Plus customers also have been reduced.
Also available to Commercial Plus customers is another innovative product offering — Critical Mail. Critical Mail, a category of Priority Mail with First-Class Mail service standards, requires using USPS-supplied envelopes at a mailing cost of $3.50 for letters and $4.25 for larger, flat-size pieces.
2011 pricing information is available at Postal Explorer or in the Dec. 16 edition of the Postal Bulletin. To download a complete listing of 2011 prices, go to Notice 123, Price List.
Minnesota Postal Employee indicted for stealing cash, gift cards from mail
A recent federal indictment alleges that a former employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) stole cash and gift cards from the mail over a ten-month period. The indictment, filed on December 7, 2010, charges Christina M. Steiner, age 35, of Forest Lake, with one count of theft of mail by a postal employee. The indictment was unsealed earlier today, following Steiner’s initial appearance in federal court in the District of Minnesota.
Steiner purportedly stole between $600 and $800 in cash and gift cards from the mail entrusted to her as an employee of the Forest Lake Post Office. According to the indictment, the thefts occurred between December of 2009 and September 18, 2010. Steiner no longer works for the U.S. Postal Service.
If convicted, Steiner faces a potential maximum penalty of five years in prison. All sentences will be determined by a federal district court judge.
This case is the result of an investigation by the USPS-Office of Inspector General. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura M. Provinzino.
source: US Attorney’s Office District Of Minnesota