Highlights of PMG’s Visit to Morgan P & DC
From National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU) Local #300 :
Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe visited Morgan P&DC in New York City on Monday October 3, 2011. Donahoe spoke to the employees of the overall condition of the Postal Service and about what he believed was needed to address the severe financial crisis that the Postal Service was experiencing. Read more
Colorado Mail Handlers Local Withdraws From USPS, OSHA Ergonomic Program
“The Ergonomic Risk Reduction Process (ERRP) reduces both the number and severity of musculoskeletal disorders, builds labor/management teams with ergonomic skills, and cultivates partnerships to identify and control ergonomic risk. These partnerships include OSHA, NPMHU, and APWU. Since its inception in 2003, 176 plants and 9 districts have implemented ERRP, with over 155,000 employees receiving training. ERRP sites that have been involved in the process for at least 12 months experienced a 21.9 percent reduction in musculoskeletal disorders this year.”–source: USPS Read more
Injured postal worker fights for medical benefits
Filed under: Injured On Duty, mail handlers, owcp, postal, postal news, usps
“Jerome Garrett is fighting for federal medical benefits.Garrett had been working at the Hapeville postal facility for 16 years. Then, in April 2009, a 100-pound box full of mail fell from an overhead conveyor belt and hit him in the head.The incident left Garrett with a broken neck that went unnoticed for some time, he said.Garrett told Channel 2′s Erica Byfield that it took six months for doctors to realize that the accident had broken his neck.Garrett said his surgeon cleared him to go back to work. But his wife showed Byfield paperwork from other spinal specialists who said he is not ready to return to work.The Department of Labor handles benefits for postal employees. The Garretts want them to reinstate him.”
Full story from WSB-TV Atlanta, Georgia
Postal Mail Handlers 2011 National Negotiations: Official Call For Bargaining Proposals
Filed under: contract, mail handlers, NPMHU, postal, postal news, usps
From the National Postal Mail Handlers Union:
With preparations underway for negotiations over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement between the NPMHU and the Postal Service, the National Office has issued its official call for bargaining proposals from all members and Local Unions.
To be fully considered prior to the onset of negotiations, proposals must be submitted by March 31, 2011. Although formal bargaining is not scheduled to begin until August or early September of this year, the Union’s Field Negotiating Committee will be meeting for a full week in April 2011 to review all submitted proposals and outline the changes in the National Agreement that should be proposed by the NPMHU.
To be sure, planning for collective bargaining is a continuous process at the National Office, as the National Officers and representatives working in the Contract Administration Department routinely identify and collect proposals for improving the language currently found in the 2006 National Agreement. But an equally important aspect of preparing for bargaining is the collection and review of proposals generated by mail handlers across the country. Thus, National President John Hegarty has issued this official call for bargaining proposals from the membership, the Local Unions, and other subordinate bodies of the NPMHU.
If you have any proposals that you would like to have considered for the upcoming round of bargaining, now is the time to submit them to the National Office. Every proposal submitted will be fully analyzed by the NPMHU’s Field Negotiating Committee and the National Negotiations Team while the Union develops its opening bargaining proposals.
All proposals should set forth the Article, Section, Paragraph, and/or Page of the National Agreement that you are suggesting should be changed; the specific language you would like to see added to, or deleted from, the current National Agreement; and your specific reasons for suggesting the change. If you have supporting evidence or documentation that you believe would support the change that you propose, please submit those materials to the National Office along with your proposals.
The National Office is asking that all proposals be submitted as soon as possible, but in no event later than March 31, 2011. The National Office also has issued a form that can be used to submit proposals. Copies of that form have been mailed to all Local Unions and all Local Union officers and stewards, and can be downloaded on the NPMHU website. (Click here to get PDF of proposal form.) Once again, proposals from any member (or group of members) and any Local Unions or other subordinate body should be submitted to the National Office by March 31, 2011, using the following address:
National Postal Mail Handlers Union
2011 Contract Negotiations
1101 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Postal Worker Indicted For Falsifying Eligibility To Run In NALC Local Election
On August 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Sharron Dixon Haynes, aka Sharron A. Haynes, former election candidate of National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 217 (located in Jackson, Miss.), was indicted on three counts of making and causing to be made, and using and causing to be used, a false writing or document in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States Government.. Haynes is alleged to have submitted a false certification of her eligibility for election to Branch 217, which she knew falsely certified that she had not served as a supervisor within two years prior to October 2008, when in fact she had served as a supervisor in May 2008. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS New Orleans District Office.
Note previous OLMS investigation:
On March 31, 2009, the Secretary of Labor received a complaint alleging violations of Section 401 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), in the regularly scheduled election of officers conducted on December 11, 2008, by National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 217 in Jackson, Mississippi.
Pursuant to Sections 402 and 601 of the LMRDA, the Department of Labor conducted an investigation. The investigation disclosed that Branch 217 incumbent officers and candidates had unregulated access to voted ballots prior to the election; unvoted ballots were hand delivered to voters by a candidate with access to election materials; voted ballots were returned by hand instead of by mail; ineligible members were permitted to vote and a voter eligibility checklist was not used in the election; eligible members were denied the right to vote when their ballots were voided because the union sent reply envelopes that did not provide the necessary identifying information; candidates were denied the right to have observers at the counting of ballots; ballots were not properly counted resulting in incorrect candidates being installed in some trustee and delegate positions; and election records were not properly maintained.
Apprised of these findings, NALC Branch 217 agreed to conduct new nominations and a new election for the offices of vice president, treasurer, three trustees, and delegates to the NALC 2010 Mississippi State Convention under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with Title IV of the LMRDA. The agreed upon remedial election was concluded on September 3, 2009. It is, therefore,
DETERMINED, that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Title IV of the LMRDA occurred which may have affected the outcome of the election conducted by National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 217 on December 11, 2008, but that these violations have been remedied by the new election, conducted in accordance with Title IV of the LMRDA, under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, on September 3, 2009.
In other Department t of Labor, OLMS criminals actions:
On September 23, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Donald Kister, former President of National Postal Mail Handlers Local 307 (located in Detroit, MI), was charged in a two-count indictment with one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $4,137.35 between August 2006 and October 2007 and one count of making false statements. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Detroit District Office.
On September 1, 2010, 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.), pled guilty to one count of willfully failing to maintain union records. On May 6, 2009, Means-Swanson was indicted on one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $4,900. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Chicago District Office.
An indictment is a formal accusation or charge based on a finding by a Grand Jury that it is likely that the person charged committed the criminal offense described in the indictment and is the means by which an accused person (defendant) is brought to trial. An indictment raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
An information is a formal accusation of a crime by a government attorney rather than a Grand Jury. An information raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A charge is an accusation of criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Each count is a separate and distinct offense charged in an indictment or information.
A guilty plea is a defendant’s admission to the court that he or she committed the offense charged and an agreement to waive the right to a trial.
A conviction is a judgment based on a jury’s verdict, judge’s finding, or the defendant’s admission that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.
A sentence is a judicial determination of the punishment to be imposed on an individual who has plead guilty or has been convicted by a jury or judge of a criminal offense.
source: U.S. Department of Labor — Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) — OLMS Enforcement
Nation’s Oldest Postal Employee To Retire On June 30
Reed is often questioned about his secret to longevity and his answer is always the same: “Onion sandwiches. I eat one every day.”
95 year–old has not missed a day of work in 37 years
What:
Nation's oldest Postal Employee
Chester Reed, who proudly claims to be 95 ½ and is the nation’s oldest U.S. Postal Service employee, is ready to retire and will be turning in his forklift keys at his retirement celebration.
Who:
Mail handler and Honoree Chester Reed
District Manager Dallas Keck
Senior Plant Manager Larry Belair
San Bernardino Plant Manager Jim Olson
When:
4:00 P.M. – Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Where:
San Bernardino Processing & Distribution Center Cafeteria
1900 W Redlands Blvd.
Redlands CA 92373
Please Note:
Media is asked to RSVP to Eva Jackson at 858–437–1493 for further instructions on how and where to enter the facility.
Mr. Reed will be available for pre–scheduled one–on–one interviews. To make arrangements, please contact Eva Jackson at 858–437–1493 in advance.
Background:
On his retirement date, Chester Reed will have accrued 37 years and 16 days of Postal Service employment, and to top it off, will have never used a day of sick leave. Combined with his military service time, Reed has a total of 62 years, 10 months and 12 days of government service.
Reed was born in 1914 in Bridgeport, Ohio. As a young man, he worked as a manager at a Texas heating and air conditioning business. Reed enlisted with the Air Force at the age of 33 in 1947. He was stationed in the San Bernardino area, and after 25 years of service, retired from the Air Force as a sergeant. Reed then joined the U. S. Postal Service in 1973, and has since worked as a mail handler–forklift operator at the San Bernardino Processing and Distribution Center.
Mail Handler and Letter Carrier Charged With Mail Theft
Filed under: legal cases, letter carriers, mail handlers, postal, press releases
Press Releases from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas :
(HOUSTON) – A mail handler for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been indicted for mail theft, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today.
Johnny McCoy, 49, of Spring, Texas, has been charged in a one-count indictment with theft of mail by a postal employee returned by a Houston grand jury on April 8, 2010. McCoy surrendered himself to USPS-Office of Inspector General authorities on Monday, April 12, 2010, and has been ordered released on bond pending trial of the case.
The charges are the result of an investigation into the theft of greeting card letters destined for USPS customers. McCoy is accused of stealing two $20 bills and a $10 bill from first class mail addressed to a USPS customer residing in Kemah, Texas, in July 2009.
McCoy worked as a mail handler at the North Houston Processing and Distribution Center at the time of this incident. Three days later, McCoy resigned from his position with the USPS.
Special Assistant United States Attorney Tammie Y. Moore is prosecuting the case
(HOUSTON) – A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) letter carrier has been indicted for mail theft, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today.
Johnnie Harden, 46, of Houston, was charged by a Houston grand jury on April 8, 2010, with two counts of theft of mail by a postal employee. Harden surrendered himself to the U.S. Marshals Service on Monday, April 12, 2010, and has been ordered released on bond pending trial in this case.
The charges against Harden are the result of an investigation initiated by the USPS-Office of Inspector General upon receipt of customer complaints reporting non-receipt of a greeting card intended for a recipient address in Houston.
Harden is accused of having stolen a $50 Target gift card from the mail entrusted to him for delivery to a USPS customer on Sept. 23, 2009, and two $50 bills enclosed in a second article of mail on Oct. 15, 2009.
Special Assistant United States Attorney Tammie Y. Moore is prosecuting the case.
MSPB Affirms Firing Of Postal Worker With No Prior Discipline For Irregular Attendance
Filed under: legal cases, mail handlers, mspb, postal, removals
From PostalReporter reader: “Employees should choose their venue for discipline wisely. At MSPB removal is an appropriate penalty for minor offenses like irregular attendance [PR note: Postal Management uses the term "Irregular Attendance" when issuing discipline to employees] despite no prior discipline. That is not the case in the grievance-arbitration procedure due to Article 16.” – Don Cheney
Here is the case from The Merit Systems Protection Board:
The appellant has petitioned for review of an initial decision that affirmed his removal for unacceptable attendance. We GRANT the petition and REOPEN the appeal in order to consider the effect of an arbitration decision vacating the appellant’s prior 14-day suspension. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the initial decision AS MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order. The appellant’s removal is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2008, the agency proposed the appellant’s removal from his position as a Mail Handler, based on a charge of unacceptable attendance. The agency cited 11 instances of unscheduled absences between January 16 and April 18, 2008. The agency also noted that the appellant had received a 14-day suspension on August 29, 2007, for unacceptable attendance. On May 27, 2008, after the appellant had an opportunity to respond to the proposed removal, the agency issued a decision letter removing him effective June 10, 2008.
On May 30, 2008, the appellant filed a Board appeal challenging his removal. He requested a hearing. After holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the removal. She found that the agency proved its charge, and that the penalty of removal was reasonable and promoted the efficiency of the service,. In her analysis of the penalty, the administrative judge referred to testimony from the deciding official that she had considered the appellant’s 14-day suspension in making her penalty determination. The administrative judge found that the deciding official’s consideration of the appellant’s prior disciplinary record was consistent with Bolling v. Department of the Air Force, 9 M.S.P.R. 335, 339-40 (1981).
The appellant filed a timely petition for review of the initial decision. On petition for review, he argues that he has new evidence. He has attached to his petition for review an arbitration decision issued on September 10, 2008. In that decision, the arbitrator vacated the appellant’s 14-day suspension for unacceptable attendance dated August 29, 2007.The appellant also argues that the administrative judge erred by failing to admit into evidence a handwritten note from the appellant’s union Branch President indicating that the appellant had a live grievance concerning the suspension while this matter was pending. The appellant further contends that the agency violated the National Agreement with the union and that the arbitration decision rendered the removal action moot.
The agency has responded in opposition to the petition for review. The agency argues that the arbitration decision was erroneous and that the suspension should not have been vacated. PFR File, Tab 3 at 12-13. The agency also argues that the fact that the suspension was vacated is not a basis for reversing the removal. Finally, the agency argues that the administrative judge properly excluded the handwritten note from the appellant’s union Branch President.
The agency’s response was filed the day after the filing deadline. The agency moved for leave to file late on the grounds that the responsible attorney inadvertently “calendared the deadline for filing a response to the PFR . . . on the wrong date.” The Board generally will not consider an untimely filing absent a showing of good cause. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f). To establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that he “exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of the case.” Schroeder v. Office of Personnel Management, 106 M.S.P.R. 125, 127 (2007). A transposition error in calendaring a deadline does not constitute the exercise of due diligence or ordinary prudence. See, e.g., Roush v. Department of the Interior, 59 M.S.P.R. 113, 116 (1993) (“An error by the agency’s clerical staff does not constitute good cause.”); Lapedis v. Department of Health and Human Services, 47 M.S.P.R. 337, 340, aff’d, 949 F.2d 403 (1991) (Table) (“The mere fact that the agency miscalculated the time for filing its response . . . does not establish good cause for the untimely response.”); Gaff v. Department of Transportation, 45 M.S.P.R. 387, 390 n. 2 (1990) (“miscalculation of the filing deadline does not constitute good cause”); cf. Jaramillo v. Department of the Air Force, 106 M.S.P.R. 244, ¶¶ 5-8 (2007) (finding that the error of the appellant’s representative in recording a refiling deadline did not establish good cause for the delay in refiling, but waiving the deadline on other grounds in the interest of justice). We have therefore not considered the agency’s response in reaching our decision.
?
ANALYSIS
The appellant argues that the removal action is arbitrary in light of the arbitration decision vacating his earlier suspension. However, we find that the cancellation of the suspension does not warrant an outcome different from the one reached in the initial decision.
We note that, at the time she issued the initial decision, the administrative judge was unaware that the arbitrator had vacated the appellant’s 14-day suspension. Therefore, the administrative judge was correct to apply Bolling to consider the appellant’s prior discipline. Under Bolling, the Board’s review of a prior disciplinary action is limited to determining whether that action is clearly erroneous, if the employee was informed of the action in writing, the action is a matter of record, and the employee was permitted to dispute the charges before a higher level of authority than the one that imposed the discipline. Bolling, 9 M.S.P.R. at 339-40. However, the Board has a policy of not considering prior discipline that has been overturned in grievance proceedings at the time of Board review. See U.S. Postal Service v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001) (citing Jones v. Department of the Air Force, 24 M.S.P.R. 429, 431 (1984)). We must therefore evaluate the agency’s penalty determination without consideration of the vacated 14-day suspension as prior discipline.
The arbitration decision was issued 2 days before the initial decision was issued. However, there is no indication in the record that either party notified the administrative judge of the existence of the arbitration decision. It is entirely possible that neither party had received the arbitration decision at the time the initial decision was issued.
To the extent that the appellant is arguing that the arbitration decision invalidates the entire removal action, we are not aware of any support for that position. The suspension that was the subject of the arbitration decision was not directly connected to the charge in this removal action. It is relevant only to the appropriate penalty. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record and have found no error by the administrative judge in sustaining the charge.
The Board will review an agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of reasonableness. Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 (1981). In her decision letter removing the appellant, the deciding official enumerated the Douglas factors she had considered in determining the appropriate penalty. Among the factors she cited were the nature of the charge, the appellant’s length of service, the consistency of the penalty with penalties given in similar circumstances, and the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation. We find that the deciding official considered the relevant Douglas factors and that the penalty of removal is within the tolerable limits of reasonableness for the charged misconduct, even in the absence of any prior discipline. With regard to the 14-day suspension, neither the proposal letter nor the decision letter cites the 14-day suspension as an aggravating factor in imposing the removal penalty. Nor does the hearing testimony of the deciding official indicate it was so considered. There is therefore no evidence that the agency impermissibly relied upon the 14-day suspension. See Jinks v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 106 M.S.P.R. 627, 636 (2007). On the other hand, the agency permissibly relied upon the suspension as evidence that the appellant had previously been warned about the conduct and was aware that additional violations would result in discipline. His continued unscheduled absences despite such notice justify his removal.
Because we have considered the reasonableness of the agency’s selected penalty without consideration of the appellant’s 14-day suspension, we need not address the appellant’s argument concerning the administrative judge’s decision to exclude a handwritten note referencing the existence of a grievance relating to that suspension.
We have also not considered the appellant’s argument on petition for review that the agency violated the National Agreement. Although the appellant alleged harmful error below, at the prehearing conference, he was unable to identify a rule, regulation or National Agreement provision that the agency allegedly violated. Therefore, the administrative judge did not include harmful error as an issue to be resolved in the summary of the prehearing conference, which stated that “additional issues are Fleming v. U.S. Postal Service, 30 M.S.P.R. 302, 308-10 (1986) (the Postal Service may properly remove an employee for using unscheduled leave when the leave was not requested in accordance with the agency’s leave-requesting procedures and when the employee was on clear notice that such unscheduled absences could result in discipline).
source: Jones vs USPS (PDF)
Postal Service’s Oldest Employee Still Going Strong
Mail handler Chester Reed is an inspiration in many ways.
He began working at the San Bernardino, CA, P&DC in 1973, after retiring from the Air Force — and has never missed a day of work during 60 years of combined federal service. At 93, Reed is the oldest postal employee still working in the nation.
“Chester is a good role model,” Plant Manager Ken Lucas said. “He’s helpful, keeps busy, and you can count on him to do anything you ask.”
“I started as a mail handler and I’m a mail handler today,” Reed said. “I used to cancel letters but now I’m an equipment operator. I’m not ready to retire. I like the work I do.”
Reed is often questioned about his secret to longevity and his answer is always the same: “Onion sandwiches. I eat one every day.”
source: USPS News Link
Postal Mail Handlers Awarded $13.8 Million for Casuals Violation
Note: Some readers (in commenting on the ‘Kelly Girl Award’ article) said USPS would not pay Clerks nearly $20 million. Well, read on about the recent payments to Mail Handlers in Phoenix, AZ. Mail Handlers received payment from the ‘casual in lieu of’ settlement agreement on August 10, 2007 (Pay Period 16) .
Background
On October 23, 2006 Arbitrator Philip Tamoush awarded $12,799,200.00 to Mail Handlers in Phoenix, AZ and $100, 800.00 to NPMHU Local #320 for lost union dues.
The arbitrator found that USPS utilized the supplemental workforce (casual-category employees ) on “a year-round basis in lieu of , instead of, in place of , full or part-time employees, in violation of Article 7.1 B of the National Agreement.”
See settlement agreement below:
