USPS Cited for Third Set Of Safety Violations in One Week
Fines Now Total Nearly One Million Dollars
APWU News
Issuing its third set of citations in less than a week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) charged the USPS with five counts of “willful” safety violations [PDF] in Bedford Park, IL on May 5. The latest citations bring the Postal Service’s total fines for these violations to nearly $1 million.
The Postal Service willfully exposed employees to hazards associated with live electrical parts, OSHA said. Postal workers were found working on live machinery with more than 480 volts of electricity without being provided nonconductive head protection, voltage-rated gloves, flame resistant clothing, or face shields to prevent injury from electric arcs. In addition, employees were not properly trained to work on machines.
OSHA issued the Postal Service $210,000 in fines for knowingly exposing employees to the risk of electric shock. The most recent citations follow OSHA fines of more than $500,000 dollars in Providence, RI and more than $200,000 in Denver, CO for similar electrical safety violations.
The APWU expects more safety violations to be issued by OSHA in the coming weeks. Check www.apwu.org for updated information.
OSHA Fines USPS $210,000 For Safety Violations In Bedford Park, Ill.
CHICAGO. – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited the U.S. Postal Service with three alleged willful violations at its Bedford Park, Ill., processing center. The Postal Service faces a total of $210,000 in fines, for electrical and protective equipment hazards, following an OSHA inspection conducted in response to employee complaints.
OSHA’s inspection, which began in November 2009, found that the Postal Service failed to provide required electrical safety training for its workers; to ensure workers used safety-related work practices while working on electrical equipment; and to provide workers with appropriate personal protective equipment while working on energized equipment. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.
“These sizable fines reflect the severity and ongoing nature of these hazards,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “The Postal Service ignored long-established safety standards and knowingly put its workers in harm’s way.”
Within the past five years, OSHA has conducted more than 900 inspections at USPS facilities across the country and has issued more than 600 citations. The Bedford Park location has more than 800 employees and has received several OSHA citations during the past four years.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Calumet City Area Office; telephone 708-891-3800. To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.
source:Department of Labor
USPS Refuses To Sever Ties With Contractor Debarred By DOL For Defrauding Its Workers
APWU News
USPS Subcontractor Defrauds Drivers of Wages, Benefits
Postal Management Refuses to Sever Ties with Company
Last month, newspapers reported a settlement [PDF] between the Department of Labor and a USPS subcontractor that exemplifies the problem with postal subcontracting: After three years of defrauding its workers of pay and benefits, the contractor, MT Transportation & Logistics Services, Inc. was ordered to pay employees $1.8 million in back wages, and was barred from entering into new federal contracts for three years.
The Department of Labor (DOL) found the contractor, a Long Island trucking company, guilty of withholding wages and benefits from more than 500 employees from December 2005 through December 2008. The company is under contract with the Postal Service to haul mail.
“This is an example of the improper and illegal practices that are often involved in postal subcontracting,” APWU Motor Vehicle Services Division Director Bob Pritchard said.
“APWU has protested USPS’ subcontracting practices for many years,” he said. “We have often pointed out that contractors’ bids are invalid. This settlement demonstrates one way subcontractors can afford to submit such low bids: They underpay their employees.”
USPS Refuses to Sever Ties
When the APWU learned of the violations, Northeast Regional Coordinator John Dirzius asked Area management if it planned to continue its current contracts with the company. In a Feb. 12 letter, the USPS said it did. “The fact that a contractor has been debarred does not mean that we have to terminate any existing contract,” a manager for the Area wrote [PDF].
“This is a shameful example of unethical and unlawful USPS contractors ripping off their employees,” Dirzius said. “Management’s response demonstrates the Postal Service’s complicity.”
Pritchard agreed. “The Postal Service does not seem to be interested in making sure their contractors conform to the law; they are only interested in eliminating jobs by contracting out work,” he said.
In his letter to postal management, Dirzius requested copies of all current contracts between the USPS and MT Transportation & Logistics Services, Inc in the Northeast Region. He is encouraging locals to monitor the expiration date of the contracts to ensure that the company is not awarded any new contracts for a three-year period. “The bottom line is that as a result of illegal and improper behavior by subcontractors, APWU members are being deprived of jobs,” he said.
Federal contract regulations require subcontractors to pay employees no less than the “prevailing wages” for the area in which they work. After a complaint was filed, the DOL found that the company and its officers had denied employees appropriate wages and fringe benefits, as mandated by the federal McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act.
“USPS subcontracting takes work away from postal employees and is inefficient,” Pritchard said. “The USPS claims to save money by awarding contracts to contractors, yet with skilled employees on site and postal equipment available, keeping the work in-house is much more efficient and practical.”
Update: EEO Class Action For Postal Employees Placed Under National Reassessment Process
A class action complaint for injured on duty postal employees was certified by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) on May 30,2008.
In the case of (Read article from February 17, 2009) Sandra McConnell, et al. v. United States Postal Service an AJ decision certified the following class:
All permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the U.S. Postal Service who have been subjected to the National Reassessment Process (NRP) from May 5, 2006 to present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The AJ certification decision recited evidence that the goal of NRP was to assign work to
employees who had an approved compensable injury as determined by the Department of Labor.
According to the decision, Phase 1 of NRP consisted largely of reviewing the files and medical records of all these employees; where needed requesting updated medical documentation from the employee; and verifying that current work actually being performed matched the current job offer. According to the decision, Phase 2 consisted largely of canvassing facilities to identify work necessary for operations and functions, attempting to match the employee with the necessary work, and if none is found, notifying the employee that no work was available.
Class members argued one or more of the following complaints:
1. NRP is a systemic attempt to abolish reasonable accommodations agency wide.
2. The agency’s alleged facially non-discriminatory policy is being applied in a discriminatory manner.
3. The process constitutes denial(s) of reasonable accommodation.
4. The process constitutes discrimination based on disability (physical/mental).
5. The process constitutes unlawful harassment and hostile work environment based on disability (physical/mental).
6. The agency unlawfully modified or terminated each person’s approved disability accommodations without cause.
7. The agency made its reassignment decisions improperly by, inter alia, failing to engage in the interactive process.
8. The agency applied the program discriminatorily both with regard to each individual and how the process was applied.
9. The agency’s actions are retaliatory for the individual’s protected conduct, in reporting injuries, filing worker’s compensation, and/or prior EEO activity.
10. The agency’s conduct violated its procedures and OWCP’s regulations and blatant failure to follow the agency’s own regulations is presumed to be motivated by retaliation and/or discrimination.
The Postal Service filed an appeal from the certification decision.
Recently EEOC agreed with the AJ’s determination that the class should be defined as all permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the agency who have been subjected to the NRP since 2006. Therefore, the EEOC reversed the Postal Service’s order rejecting the class and ordered them to notify potential class members.
2010 PostalReporter.com All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from PostalReporter.com
DOL Will Recover $1.8 Million In Back Wages From USPS Mail Hauling Contractor
Filed under: Dept. of Labor, mail delivery, postal, press releases
The company and its principal officers also will be debarred from receiving future government contracts for a three-year period.
BAY SHORE, N.Y. — The U.S. Department of Labor will recover more than $1.8 million in back wages for more than 500 employees of MT Transportation & Logistics Services Inc., a trucking company based in Bay Shore, under contract with the United States Postal Service (USPS) to haul mail. The company and its principal officers also will be debarred from receiving future government contracts for a three-year period.
USPS mail haul contracts are subject to the prevailing wage and fringe benefits provisions of the federal McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act. The McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act requires contractors and subcontractors performing on federal service contracts in excess of $2,500 to pay service employees no less than the wage rates and fringe benefits found prevailing in the locality for the classification of work that they perform. The department’s Wage and Hour Division cited the company and the company’s officers for failing to pay their service employees the legally required hourly rates and fringe benefits.
“The laws governing prevailing wages and benefits on federal contracts grant clear protections to workers, and the Labor Department will continue to ensure that companies awarded federal contracts are following the rules,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.
In an administrative complaint filed with the Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Wage and Hour Division named as respondents the company, Anthony Alvarez as president, Andrew Meyers as vice president-sales, Della Herzog as vice president-finance and Terri Chester as controller/general manager. The ALJ approved a consent findings and order to resolve the complainant when the respondents agreed to pay a total of $1,830,800 in back wages and interest for the period from Dec. 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2008. The judgment also orders the company and the principal officers to be debarred from future government contracts for three years and to establish a compliance program to ensure future compliance with wage and hour laws.
DOL to Reconsider Bush’s Last-Minute FMLA Changes
APWU News
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced [PDF] Dec. 7 that she is reviewing changes made early this year to regulations governing the Family and Medical Leave Act. The announcement has set off speculation that the Department of Labor will overturn revisions implemented at the very end of the Bush administration.
APWU members may recall that just four days before President Bush left the White House, he implemented several regulatory changes to the FMLA, some of which have caused problems for workers, including postal employees. The APWU was among several workers’ advocacy organizations that fought the imposition of the new rules.
Included among the changes were a narrowing of the definition of a “serious health condition,” requirements for additional medical documentation, requirements that medical evidence be provided more frequently, and permission for employers to contact an employee’s healthcare provider directly, without the employees’ knowledge or permission.
“We hope the Department of Labor will reverse policies that were pushed through just before President Obama took office,” said APWU Legislative & Political Department Director Myke Reid.
APWU President William Burrus wrote to Solis in June, saying that the Bush FMLA rules “weakened the law and made it more difficult for workers to exercise the right the legislation was designed to protect.”
The expected “new” regulations will be developed and published by November, Reid said, and the APWU’s concerns again will be shared with the Department of Labor. “Eleven months may seem like a long time, but notice must be given and a 60-day ‘comment period’ is required. We are optimistic that the subsequent review will work in our favor.”
U.S. Department of Labor files lawsuit against USPS On Behalf Of Fired Whistleblower
The U.S. Department of Labor has filed suit against the U.S. Postal Service, alleging that a former Seattle Processing and Distribution Center postal employee was discharged in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970.
According to the court documents:
On or about January 21, 2008, the postal employee made a health complaint to her supervisor that she was suffering from a severe allergic reaction due to her work on a particular piece of machinery. In response to her complaint, the postal employee’s manager sent her to another part of the processing center. No official report of her complaint was made until more than three months later. On February 7, 2008, the postal employee told her supervisor she would no longer work on the piece of machinery she believed caused her allergic reaction. Defendant continued to schedule the postal employee to work on the machinery even though there were other places in the facility that she could work and there were other employees available to work on the machinery. On February 20, 2008, the postal employee discussed her health concerns with a union steward and another regular employee; the two regular employees directed her to a designated postal safety officer, who gave her contact information for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), in order to report her health concerns. The fact that she received this information was reported to Defendant on the same day. On or about February 22, 2008, Defendant ceased scheduling the postal employee for hours of work. On February 25, 2008, the postal employee filed a health complaint with OSHA. On February 28, 2008, the postal employee filed a complaint alleging a violation of § 11(c) with OSHA.
Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits discharge or other discrimination against an employee for reporting a work-related fatality, injury or illness. It also prohibits retaliation against employees for filing a safety or health complaint, or for exercising a wide range of other rights afforded to them by the act.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the complaint seeks to reinstate the employee and to secure back pay, interest, punitive damages, other relief and an order permanently enjoining the U.S. Postal Service from violating the anti-discrimination provisions of the OSH Act.
Postal Union Officials Charged With Embezzlement, Theft
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards recent criminal enforcement data:
On June 8, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Brian Brownlee, former Vice-President of American Postal Workers Union (APWU) 2nd District (located in Hot Springs, Ark.), pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $16,221.30. An OLMS investigation concluded that Brownlee falsified vouchers for travel, per diem, lodging and lost time. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Dallas District Office.
On June 3, 2009, in the 79th District Court of Mason County, Michigan, Kimberly Drake, former Treasurer of American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 3466 (located in Ludington, Mich.), pled guilty to one count of embezzlement of $200 or more but less than $1,000. Drake was immediately sentenced to two years probation, ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,050 and fined $160. Drake previously made restitution in the amount of $450. The plea and sentencing follow an investigation by the OLMS Detroit District Office.
On June 1, 2009, in Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Va., Sylvia Grooms, Director of Industrial Relations for American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 199 (located in Richmond, Va.), was indicted on four counts of grand larceny associated with feloniously and unlawfully stealing the union’s property. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Washington District Office, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General.
On May 13, 2009, in the 79th District Court of Mason County, Michigan, Kimberly Drake, former Treasurer of American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 3466 (located in Ludington, Mich.), was charged with one count of forgery and one count of embezzlement of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Detroit District Office.
On May 6, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Mozelle E. Means-Swanson, former President of American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 7139 (located in Aurora, Ill.), was indicted on one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $4,900. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Chicago District Office.
On April 3, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Richard M. Clark, former Secretary Treasurer of Letter Carriers Branch 468 (located in Bowling Green, Ky.), was charged with embezzling $18,680 in union funds and concealing and destroying union records. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Cincinnati District Office
On March 30, 2009, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Tina Curtis, former Secretary Treasurer for the APWU Local 232 (located in Columbus, Ohio), was sentenced to three years probation, 100 hours of community service and ordered to make restitution. On November 17, 2008, Curtis pled guilty to embezzling $18,283 in union funds. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office
APWU President Burrus Calls on Labor Department to Reverse Bush FMLA Rules
APWU News
APWU President William Burrus has called on U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to rescind the new regulations [PDF] governing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that were imposed by the Bush Administration just days before the former president left office.
The Bush FMLA rules “weakened the law and made it more difficult for workers to exercise the rights the legislation was designed to protect,” Burrus said in his June 3 letter [PDF] to Solis.
The new regulations, he noted, define “serious health condition” more narrowly; require employees to provide more medical documentation about their conditions, and provide it more often; allow employers to contact an employee’s healthcare providers without the employees’ knowledge or permission, and permit employers to request FMLA recertification every six months in conjunction with an absence, at the employee’s expense.
In calling for the reversal of the President Bush’s parting shot to American working families, however, Burrus requested that Labor Department “retain the one positive change” in the new rules: the expansion of FMLA rights for members of the military and their families.
Burrus praised the FMLA Restoration Act (H.R. 2161), introduced in the House of Representatives on April 29 by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), but asked the labor secretary to reverse the new rules without waiting for the legislation to pass.
Updated: DOL Policy on FMLA Notice and Call-In Procedures
From PostalReporter reader
The Dept of Labor has issued a new FMLA Opinion Letter titled, “Employee Notice and Call-In Procedures,” that rescinds previous policy. Basically, it says that the employer’s usual and customary notice requirements for leave can be enforced in most cases of FMLA absences. The burden of proof that it wasn’t “practicable” to give sufficient advance notice will be borne by the employee. The former “two-day rule” has been rescinded. I predict many employers will seize on this technicality to deny their workers FMLA leave.
Don Cheney
Auburn, WA
FMLA2009-1-A Employee Notice and Call-In Procedures
http://www.dol.gov/esa/WHD/opinion/FMLA/2009/2009_01_06_1A_FMLA.htm
January 6, 2009
This is in response to your request for clarification of employee notification procedures under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as discussed in Wage and Hour Opinion Letter FMLA-101 (January 15, 1999). You state that employers believe that opinion letter FMLA-101 prevents them from applying internal call-in policies, disciplining employees under no call/no show policies, or disciplining employees who call in late, as long as the employees provide notice within two business days that the leave was FMLA-qualifying, regardless of whether they could have practicably provided notice sooner. You believe that this interpretation of the FMLA employee notification requirements “places an untenable burden on employers who are attempting to reasonably schedule their workforce based on foreseeable availabilities of employees and to apply uniform rules on call in to all employees.”
***
Accordingly, as stated in the final rule, where an employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave are consistent with what is practicable given the particular circumstances of the employee’s need for leave, the employer’s notice requirements can be enforced. To the degree that Wage and Hour Opinion Letter FMLA-101 has been interpreted to create a flat “two-day rule,” the Department is hereby rescinding it. Thus, in the example you cite in your letter of an employer policy requiring employees to call in one hour prior to their shift to report absences and an employee who is absent on Tuesday and Wednesday, but does not call in on either day and instead provides notice of his need for FMLA leave when he returns to work on Thursday, it is our opinion that unless unusual circumstances prevented the employee from providing notice consistent with the employer’s policy, the employer may deny FMLA leave for the absence.
Sincerely,
Alexander Passantino
Acting Administrator