Postal Supervisor Loses Lawsuit on Hostile Work Environment
Filed under: legal cases, owcp, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
Postal Supervisor Claimed A Hostile Work Environment aggravated his medical condition and USPS failed to investigate.
The following facts are based upon the allegations in John Pell’s amended complaint filed in the United States District Court and information from the EEOC case.
Pell is a former employee of the USPS who worked at the Framingham, Massachusetts Post Office. In 2003, while employed as a supervisor at the USPS, Pell was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and a psychiatric condition called Transient Global Amnesia (“TGA”). After these initial diagnoses, he remained out of work until his doctors released him to return to work. Pell’s doctors allowed him to return to work in 2005 on the condition that the USPS provide “strict enforcement” of USPS regulations and policies in Pell’s work environment, specifically those regulations and policies that prohibited workplace threats, harassment, bullying, intimidation and that contain a “zero tolerance” policy for unacceptable levels of workplace stress. Pell claims that he sought such “strict enforcement” as a “reasonable accommodation” [under the Rehabilitation Act] of his condition to enable him to perform the essential duties of his job. From the time he returned to work at some point in 2005 until September 5, 2006, Pell alleges the USPS strictly enforced USPS regulations and policies in his work environment and as a result he was able to perform all of the essential functions of his job.
However, on September 5, 2006, Framingham Postmaster William Harris approached Pell at the beginning of his shift, accused Pell of sexual harassment, and told him he had three choices: (1) accept a demotion; (2) transfer out of the Framingham Post Office; or (3) “I’ll throw you out.” Pell alleges that Harris’ conduct towards him violated USPS regulations and policies against bullying, harassment, threats, and intimidation. As a result of Harris’ conduct towards him, Pell suffered a TGA episode, left the workplace and has not returned to work since that day. He has since retired from the USPS.
Pell was unhappy with the USPS’s handling of his complaint about the September 5, 2006 incident. Pell alleges that, in connection with a worker’s compensation claim he filed when he was out of work, Harris completed two forms related to the September 5, 2006 incident that were inconsistent and incomplete. Pell also claims that Harris failed to investigate the September 5, 2006 incident fully because he did not interview Pell or other witnesses. Pell further alleges that he requested that Harris be investigated for violating USPS policies and regulations in connection with the September 5, 2006 incident, but that USPS District Manager John Powers chose not to do so. In early 2008, Pell reported Harris’ violations of USPS policies and regulations to USPS Northeast Area Vice President Haney , but Haney refused to investigate Harris’ conduct and refused to refer the alleged violations to the Office of the Inspector General .
Pell sought EEO counseling on March 31, 2008 — nearly a year and a half after the alleged September 5, 2006 incident of discrimination. In contacting the EEO, Pell indicated that the date of the alleged discriminatory incident was March 4, 2008 — the date Pell became aware that Haney would not refer the alleged violations of USPS policies and regulations to OIG.
After receiving the EEO notice of right to file a formal complaint on June 23, 2008, Pell filed a complaint with the EEO on July 8, 2008. On July 28, 2008, the EEO dismissed Pell’s complaint for two reasons: (1) failure to state a claim because the Department of Labor is the proper forum to address the basis of Pell’s then pending worker’s compensation claim; and (2) untimely EEO counselor contact because Pell failed to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the September 5, 2006 incident.
Pell then timely appealed the dismissal of his EEO complaint to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations. The OFO upheld the Postal Service’s dismissal:
The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on another proceeding. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993).
In this matter, we find that the instant complaint is a collateral attack on a proceeding before the Department of Labor, and the proper forum for complainant to raise any challenges regarding the agency’s
improper investigation of his injury is during that proceeding itself. The Commission agrees with the agency that complainant fails to state claim. See Hannon v. Treasury, Request No. 05A01149 (May 8, 2003).
After a review of the record, including statements and arguments not addressed herein, based on the reasons above, we find that the agency properly dismissed the complaint.
Reading the allegations in the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Pell, his claim is likewise barred by the Rehabilitation Act’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Pell alleges that Harris’ conduct on September 5, 2006 amounted to discrimination based on Pell’s psychiatric disability and caused Pell to suffer a recurrence of his TGA, forcing him to leave the workplace that very day. Like the plaintiff in Roman-Martinez who was required to contact the EEO counselor within 30 days of the alleged discriminatory actions, Pell was required to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the September 5, 2006 incident.2 It is uncontested that Pell failed to contact an EEO counselor within this required 45 day period and, therefore, his claim is barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Pell does not argue that Haney’s March 4, 2008 denial of any further investigation of the September 5, 2006 incident constituted a new discriminatory action and thus became the triggering event for commencing EEO procedures nor would such argument be plausible on the basis of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. The Supreme Court has held, “the time for filing a charge of employment discrimination with the [EEOC] begins when the discriminatory act occurs . . . . A new violation does not occur, and a charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.” Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618, 628 (2007) (superceded on other grounds by Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5). “[T]he proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts become the most painful.”
Even read in the light most favorable to Pell, March 4, 2008 was the date on which he learned that the USPS would not further investigate or refer his claim that the September 5, 2006 incident was discriminatory. That is, the September 5, 2006 allegedly discriminatory act triggered Pell’s obligation to contact the EEO
Having ruled that this matter must be dismissed because of Pell’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court need not reach Defendants’ further argument that dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is also warranted because he has failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination based on a disability.
John Pell vs JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, March 1, 2011
NAPS: Congress Needs To Correct Two Massive Errors Driving USPS Into The Red
Filed under: NAPS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, Postmasters, usps
More than 500 Postal Supervisors, along with many Postmasters, are meeting with Congressional offices on the Hill March 22-23, 2011.
From the National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS)
The Postal Service warned Congress earlier this month that it will run out of cash by the end of the current fiscal year, on September 30, if it has to make the required payment of $5.5 billion into the Postal Retiree Health Benefit Fund.
Two massive errors – by Congress and the federal bureaucracy – have caused the Postal Service to approach the brink of financial insolvency. These mistakes were avoidable and should be cured by Congress.
Massive Error #1: Huge Retiree Health Prepayments. The first error involves the size of the annual Postal Service payment into the Postal Retiree Health Benefit Fund, a burden that Congress imposed on the Postal Service in 2006. No federal entity – other than the Postal Service — is required to make prefunding payments for future retiree health care costs. Prefunding is a good idea, BUT the size of the prepayments has bled the Postal Service into the red. The payments must be restructured, the same way a mortgage payment is restructured.
But for these large prefunding payments, the Postal Service would have been in the red in only two of the past four years, despite significant drops in mail volume due to the recession and the internet.
Massive Error #2: Huge Pension Overpayments. Ongoing errors by the federal bureaucracy – the Office of Personnel Management — have forced the Postal Service to make huge pension overpayments over the past 40 years into the federal civil service pension fund.
How much? The Postal Regulatory Commission and the Inspector General of the Postal Service estimate the Postal Service has overpaid between $55 – 75 billion into the civil service pension fund. This essentially has resulted in a hidden “Stamp Tax” on postage ratepayers.
Congress should correct these massive errors and restore the Postal Service to financial stability by:
– Refunding the Pension Overpayments to the Postal Service: Ordering OPM to recalculate the pension payments made by the Postal Service and refunding any overpayments back to the Postal Service; and by
– Directing the Postal Service to use the refunded pension overpayments to satisfy its future retiree health benefit obligations.
This is not a bailout. This is a win-win for government accountability and a solvent Postal Service. The correction of postal pension overpayments should not increase the federal deficit. Fair dealing between one arm of the federal government and another should not permit incorrect and unjustified payments into the federal treasury to stand.
SATURDAY DELIVERY SHOULD BE THE LAST RESORT, NOT THE FIRST
Under current law, the Postal Service is required to deliver mail six days a week. As you know, the Postal Service has asked Congress to revise the law to permit the Postal Service to end Saturday delivery.
We believe that cutting Saturday delivery is unnecessary, at least for now. Saturday delivery will be counter-productive and harmful to the postal system, American
households and businesses.
If Congress acts to refund the Postal Service for its pension overpayments and restructures its pension and health benefit obligations, the Postal Service will be on a more stable financial footing – without the need to end Saturday delivery.
Reducing mail delivery days should be the last resort, not the first.
NAPS: The Threat to End Collective Bargaining
The following is an article written by Jay Killackey, Executive Vice President, National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS)
You and Your Benefits under attack (February 28, 2011)
You might wonder why my article this month is on collective bargaining. As supervisors, managers and postmasters in the Postal Service, we do not enjoy the right to collective bargaining. But, since most current and retired EAS employees started their postal careers as craft employees, collective bargaining is something all postal employees have taken for granted for many years. Collective bargaining is the linchpin that provides us management employees with our consultative rights.
Anyone watching the news knows collective bargaining for state and federal government employees is under attack. Governors from several states and some elected leaders in Washington, DC, are of the opinion government employees no longer should have the right to collective bargaining. Why? Because, in the opinion of some, the basic right workers have to collective bargaining has bankrupted the country.
In the Postal Service, only the craft unions have collective bargaining, while field management employees have an exception to the rule excluding supervisory employees from collective bargaining. This exception is allowed for EAS employees as shown in Section 208 of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) of 1970.
Management associations in the Postal Service exist solely to represent EAS field employees. The PRA made it clear postal supervisors engage in consultation that is similar to, but not the same thing as, collective bargaining.
Our consultative rights provide NAPS and the other two postal management associations the ability to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees. Without our consultative rights, we would have to rely on the benevolence of the Postal Service, which otherwise could change a rule without even giving us time to review and respond. Our consultative rights for pay and benefits begin at the end of collective bargaining periods for the largest of the postal unions.
Prominently displayed on our website and in our organization’s Constitution & Bylaws is the following; “The object of the Association is to promote, through appropriate and effective action, the welfare of its members, and to cooperate with USPS and other agencies of the federal government in a continuing effort to improve the service, to raise the standard of efficiency, and to widen the field of opportunity for its members who make the Postal Service or the federal government their life work.”
Because of our consultative rights, we successfully have helped our members in two major postal reorganizations in the past two years. With the major restructuring scheduled to be announced March 25, our consultative rights will be more precious than ever. But, collective bargaining and, possibly, our consultative rights, are on some elected officials’ radar scopes for extinction.
The new chairman of the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy, Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-FL), of late has been posting tweets on the Internet, expressing his opinions of collective bargaining in the public sector. Ross has posted comments such as, “There is no constitutional basis for collective bargaining rights or unionization.” In another post, he said, “Private-sector unions were needed in the 20s and the 30s. They are even helpful in some ways today. Public-sector unions must go.”
With comments such as these from the chair of the committee that will be overseeing the future of the Postal Service, every member of a management association or postal union should be very concerned. The collective bargaining rights the unions now enjoy and the consultative rights the management associations have under Title 39 could be abridged or even eliminated under the new leadership of this House committee.
All too often in our country, people don’t get involved in a controversy until it immediately affects them. When someone is on the side of the road, many won’t even make a free cell phone call to advise authorities there is a person in distress, let alone stop for them. NAPS members cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while there are attacks on public-sector unions because today’s attacks at the state level will be tomorrow’s attacks on the federal level—aimed directly at the rights we enjoy as postal employees and managers.
Every NAPS member should contact his or her elected officials in Washington to say you want them to continue supporting collective bargaining by postal unions and to maintain our consultative rights with the Postal Service under Title 39, United States Code.
Sen. Carper Reacts to USPS plan to eliminate 7,500 admin, supervisory and Postmaster positions
Filed under: postal, postal news, postal supervisors, Postmasters, usps
Sen. Carper Reacts to USPS Job Cuts
WASHINGTON – Today, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management which oversees the U.S. Postal Service, issued the following statement regarding Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe’s plan to eliminate 7,500 administrative, supervisory and postmaster positions:
“Postmaster General Donahoe has a daunting task before him – he must find significant, effective means to streamline the Postal Service and he needs to do it quickly. Current projections show that the Postal Service may be left without the resources necessary to operate by the next holiday season. Major changes must be made so that taxpayers aren’t left to bailout this struggling, but salvageable, institution. I have said it before and I’ll say it again, we need to think outside the box when it comes to identifying solutions to prevent the Postal Service from going broke and every option needs to be on the table. This plan to make the Postal Service more efficient by reducing unnecessary positions certainly fits that criteria and is something that I think we should take a serious look at. This announcement also shows that all stakeholders – including top managers – will need to feel the impact of the tough decisions that will need to be made in the coming months. I look forward to working with Postmaster General Donahoe on this and other proposals to reform the U.S. Postal Service and put it on more solid financial footing.”
Sen. Carper has been a leader in Congress on the effort to reform and modernize the U.S. Postal Service. As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, he has held several hearings over the last year exploring the financial challenges facing the Postal Service as well as the ways to best address them.
On Sept. 23, 2010, Sen. Carper introduced comprehensive postal reform legislation, the Postal Operations Sustainment and Transformation (POST) Act of 2010. The POST Act sought to address the financial problems plaguing the Postal Service by proposing a comprehensive set of reforms including: easing postal employee pension and retiree health costs; addressing postal employee wages and benefits; allowing partnerships with state and local governments and giving the Postal Service leeway to close post offices, market certain non-postal items and eliminate Saturday delivery.
NAPS Legislative Update: What to Expect from the New Congress?
NAPS Leg/Reg Update – Jan. 5, 2011
The 112th Congress Convenes. The new Congress convenes today. All Members of the House (including 94 House freshmen) and the Senate (including 16 new Senators) will be sworn in and legislative work will begin.
The House will elect John Boehner (R-OH) as Speaker and adopt procedural rules governing its business. Changes in the House rules are expected to pave the way for potential cuts in government funding and deficit reduction efforts.
All pending legislation that remained at the end of the last Congress, which adjourned on December 22, will have to be re-introduced in the new Congress for consideration. Bill numbers will change when legislation is re-introduced.
What to Expect from the New Congress? With the takeover of the House of Representatives as a result of the November elections, the GOP has set its sights on reducing the size of government and cutting the costs of government. Making those ambitious changes happen will be easier said than done. Democrats still control the Senate, creating the prospect for even more divisive, stalemated government in the months ahead.
Regardless, postal and federal employees will be in the cross-hairs of proposed budget cuts — trimming jobs and rolling back retirement and health benefits. Look for more information from NAPS on these issues in the days ahead and what you can do.
In addition, postal reform will advance to center stage once again, with potential major changes for the Postal Service, given its financial posture and an out-of-date business model. (The Washington Post identified postal reform as #4 among the ten things to watch across government in 2011.)
Near the end of the last Congress, two postal reform bills were introduced in the Senate that are expected to be reintroduced for consideration in the new Congress. The bills were introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). A postal reform bill is likely to be introduced in the House as well. These bills deal with a host of issues, including reductions in delivery days, post office and facility closures, and new product and pricing flexibility.
A Timely and Significant LTS. These changes and developments mean that the upcoming NAPS Legislative Seminar in Washington, D.C., set for March 20-23, will be a most important event. Foremost, it will be an opportunity to educate Congress – and new Congressional staff — on what’s at stake for the Postal Service and how the Postal Service operates.
Register now for the LTS. And make your reservation at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.
For LTS online registration, click here.
For a hardcopy LTS registration form to mail-in, click here.
For making your Omni Shoreham reservations, click here.
Look for further LTS updates about speakers and other exciting program features.
Bruce Moyer
NAPS Legislative Counsel
National Deficit Commission Proposed Big Hits on Feds and Postal Workers, Retirees
Filed under: NAPS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
Archived National Association of Postal Supervisors Legislative Report
Deficit Commission Proposes Big Hits on Feds and Postal Workers, Retirees
The co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility on Wednesday released their recommendations for significant savings in federal spending. As feared, the proposals would bring significant pain to the active and retired federal and postal workforce.
Co-commission chairs Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alam Simpson in a preliminary document proposed:
– A 3-year pay freeze on all federal employees;
– A 10% cut in the federal workforce;
– Increasing the federal “high-3″ retirement formula to a “high-5″ approach;
– A significant increase in federal and postal employee contributions for retirement benefits;
– Lower federal civilian and military retiree benefits, and
– Increases in federal and postal retiree premiums for health benefits.
In addition the co-chairs would curb Social Security benefits and eliminate up to $100 billion annually in various tax breaks.
Whether these draft recommendations become the final recommendations of the commission is highly uncertain. President Obama’s directive establishing the deficit commission and appointing its 18 members requires 14 of the panel’s 18 members to agree to any proposal for it to become the commission’s official recommendation.
The scary prospect for federal and postal employees is that even if the deficit commission fails to reach agreement on changes in some controversial areas affecting all Americans — like the changes to the tax code or Social Security benefits — the commission could still go ahead and zero-in on federal workforce pay and benefits, and recommend changes there. Any deficit commission recommendation would still need to be approved by Congress and signed-off by the President.
The commission is required to file its report with President Obama by December 1st. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) previously pledged to bring to a House vote before the end of the year on any proposals officially proposed by the commission.
NAPS is closely monitoring the work of the deficit commission and will continue to advocate for the preservation of postal pay and benefits. NAPS joined with 17 other federal and postal employee groups last month in urging the commission to respect the value of public service and the solvency of the health insurance and retirement systems that cover federal and postal workers and retirees.
Bruce Moyer
MSPB Overturns Demotion of Postal Supervisor For Misuse Of USPS Credit Card
Filed under: legal cases, mspb, postal, postal supervisors, removals, usps
The following is a modified version of the MSPB case:
Based on the results of an investigation, USPS removed the appellant from his position as EAS-17 Supervisor, Distribution Operations, on a charge of failure to follow instructions – unauthorized purchases on his government credit card. USPS listed three specifications: (1) using his assigned government credit card for personal reasons; (2) unacceptable conduct – receiving night differential to which he was not entitled; and (3) unacceptable conduct – falsification of PS Form 1261 (non-transactor report). On review, the deciding USPS official found that the “charges” were sustained but that removal was too severe, and he mitigated the penalty to a reduction in grade and pay to the position of Mailhandler, Level 4.
On appeal, the Supervisor challenged the action and alleged that it was in retaliation for his protected equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. During adjudication, the MSPB administrative judge notified the parties that she construed the proposal notice as consisting of three separate charges with one specification under each charge, and neither party noted any objection.
Following a hearing, the MSPB administrative judge issued an initial decision in which she found charge (1) sustained. Although she found that the Supervisor’s use of his government credit card to buy pizzas for his subordinates was appropriate, she found that his other uses (twelve cash advances, seven gasoline purchases, and two car rentals over a 5-month period, all personal expenses) were not. The MSPB administrative judge further found that charges (2) and (3) were not sustained. She found that discipline for the sustained charge promoted the efficiency of the service, and that the Supervisor did not support his claim that the action was taken in retaliation for his prior protected EEO activity. Based on the single sustained charge, the administrative judge found that the reduction in grade and pay was within the limits of reasonableness. Read more
USPS Changes Instructions On Excessing Supervisors Based On Workload Credit Process
Filed under: NAPS, NAPUS, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, Postmasters, usps
NAPUS has received a copy of a letter from Deputy Postmaster General & COO Patrick Donahoe, with instructions on changes to the way the results of Supervisory Workload Credit (SWC) will be handled when a supervisory staffing reduction is determined. Mr. Donahoe said “Effective immediately, when the SWC worksheet results in a supervisory staffing reduction to a particular installation or unit, the change will be effective no sooner than 30 days from the date the worksheet is finalized and provided to local management.” The change in the date of implementation is intended to ensure that there is an adequate period of time to effectively make the required change.
From NAPS:
SWC Update 10/29/10
The resident officers have completed discussions with the Postal Service that were previously initiated by the executive board during our recent board meeting. The discussions concerned the use of the automated SWC for Customer Services and the immediacy with which the Postal Service was implementing staffing changes. It was NAPS’ position that the automated SWC data may be incorrect and deserved an additional review.
NAPS has been successful in achieving the issuance of instructions by the Deputy Postmaster General of the Postal Service to have a 30 day review period following a SWC review performed in a Customer Service operation that results in the loss of an EAS position in an office.
Based on the attached letter from the Deputy Postmaster General, Patrick Donahoe, there will be a 30 day period, prior to the ultimate reassignment of an impacted supervisor, where our local NAPS officers can review the automated SWC calculations and complete the manual SWC forms to determine the accuracy of the automated SWC completed by management.
There are two documents attached:
1.Letter dated October 28, 2010 authored by DPMG and COO Patrick Donahoe
2.Instructions for local NAPS branches to conduct a review of the Management initiated SWC evaluation
NAPS, at the local level, should initiate a review of any automated SWC that results in the reduction of an EAS position. Local branch officers should follow the instructions that are attached to this message. If you have any questions, direct them to your respective NAPS Area VP.
Instructions dated October 28, 2010:
NAPS Headquarters has been working with the Postal Service to provide a timeline for NAPS branches at the local level to review the results of SWC’s calculations that result in the excessing of supervisors from Customer Service operations.
As a result of automated SWC calculations, and the desire of local management to make immediate moves of EAS employees, our members, in certain situations, are being required to make decisions about applying for new positions in less than a week.
NAPS has objected to postal headquarters about the speed at which the process has been employed and the negative impact that this process has had on our members who are being impacted.
The Postal Service has agreed to a NAPS proposal to provide a 30 day review period where SWC’s calculations result in the loss of a supervisor position in stations/branches and post offices.
In a letter to the field, from Deputy Postmaster General Pat Donahoe (see attached), when a SWC’s calculation results in the reduction of an EAS position the impacted EAS employee cannot be moved out of the assignment in less than 30 days from the date of notification.
What should our members do when they are notified that their position has been impacted by a SWC completed on their office?
When one of our members is notified that their position has been impacted, they should immediately contact their local NAPS branch president to report the Postal Service’s actions.
• The branch president should request a copy of the SWC evaluation that was completed by the Postal Service and work with the postmaster or station/branch manager to complete a manual SWC form (this form is available on the NAPS website or through contact with your respective NAPS Area Vice President).
• A local branch officer, with the assistance of the postmaster, station/branch manager and/or supervisor of the impacted office, completes the manual SWC form to ensure that all craft positions for the office are identified and reported in the SWC matrix.
• You must pay particular attention to vacant positions and the evaluation of clerks with financial responsibilities as the SWC calculations for clerks with financial duties have a higher value in the SWC process.
• Once the manual SWC worksheet is completed, a comparison between the automated SWC that was generated by the Postal Service and the Manual SWC worksheet developed by NAPS and the local management of the impacted office should be completed.
• If there are differences between the USPS SWC data and the manual SWC data that was prepared at the local office indicate that the office has been evaluated improperly and the impacted EAS supervisor position should remain in the office, immediately contact local postal officials (POOM, Manager, Operations Program Support, etc) of the findings of your review.
• Should you be unable to resolve the discrepancies that you have found between the automated SWC generated by the Postal Service and your local manual SWC worksheet, the next step is to contact your respective NAPS Area Vice President and advise them of the situation you have.
• Due to the time frame of 30 days that was provided by the Postal Service prior to the impacted EAS supervisor being relocated, it is critical that everyone involved remain mindful of the time period provided so that our SWC review and any rebuttals so not wait until the last minute to surface.
The ultimate objective of this NAPS’ plan is to conduct a timely review of the SWC process within the 30 day timeframe established through negotiations with the Postal Service.
If there are no discrepancies between the automated SWC and your manual SWC the process of reducing the EAS complement in the office can proceed after the 30 day period has expired.
If you have any questions about this process, and/or if the Postal Service is disputing the data that is developed by NAPS local officials, please contact your NAPS Area Vice President.
New York Postal Supervisor Found Guilty Of Operating $10 Million Gambling Ring
Filed under: postal, postal news, postal supervisors, press releases, usps
Employee of the United States Postal Service Found Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court for Operating $10 Million Illegal Gambling Ring
October 21, 2010
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and JANE HUGHES, the Special Agent-in- Charge of the United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General for the Northeast Area (“USPS-OIG”), announced that JAMES WASHINGTON, a/k/a “Harlem,” was found guilty yesterday of conspiring to operate an illegal gambling business throughout USPS facilities and other government workplaces. WASHINGTON was found guilty yesterday by a federal jury after a three-day trial before U.S. District Judge RICHARD M. BERMAN.
According to the evidence presented at trial, and other documents previously filed in Manhattan federal court:
From 2005 to 2009, WASHINGTON, who was then a USPS supervisor, along with several co-conspirators who worked at the USPS and other state and local government agencies, operated a “Lotto”-type gambling business (the “Lottery”) which tracked the numbers chosen for the New York State Lotto drawings and paid out on a monthly basis prizes in the range of $100,000 and more.
Each month, thousands of players paid $20 per entry in the Lottery. “Lottery books,” which listed each player’s name and the six numbers he or she chose to play per entry, were distributed to players from a central storage facility in Brooklyn. The winner was the first player or players to have all six numbers chosen in the New York State Lotto.
During the course of the conspiracy, WASHINGTON and his co-conspirators collected over $10 million dollars in illegal wagers, many of which were collected from USPS employees, as well as employees of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) and New York Department of Sanitation (“DSNY”). Much of the illegal activity took place on Government property and during work hours. The evidence at trial showed that WASHINGTON earned over $100,000 in illegal profits from his role in the conspiracy.
The following co-conspirators have previously pled guilty in this case:
JAMES MONTELEONE, a former MTA employee, ANDREW TURELLI, a former USPS employee, JUAN DEJESUS, a USPS employee, JOHN ALFONZO, a DSNY employee, RUBEN CHAVES, an MTA employee, MICHAEL FARRAJ, an MTA employee, MAURICE PALMER, a former USPS employee, ROMUALDO MUNOZ, a former USPS employee, STEVEN GOLDSTEIN, a USPS employee, and FRANK LINSALATA.
Mr. BHARARA thanked the FBI and the USPS-OIG for their work in the investigation of this case. Mr. BHARARA also thanked the DSNY and the MTA for their assistance.
This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys AIMEE HECTOR and DANIEL CHUNG are in charge of the prosecution.
source: FBI
NAPS Legislative Update: Postal Service Suffers Three Stinging Defeats
Filed under: NAPS, politics, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
by Bruce Moyer, NAPS Legislative Counsel
National Association of Postal Supervisors Legislative & Regulatory Update
Sept. 30, 2010
Postal Service Suffers Three Stinging Defeats
One of the most troubling weeks in Washington for the United States Postal Service is coming to an end, with three major setbacks. The first two came on Capitol Hill, as Congress was departing for its election recess. The third was delivered by the Postal Regulatory Commission, denying the Postal Service’s emergency rate increase request.
Dual setbacks from Congress
The USPS got shredded in the legislative buzz saw twice in the last week, first through Congress’ refusal to provide financial relief to the USPS in a stop-gap government spending measure, then when the House stopped action on legislation to restructure the Postal Service’s retiree health prefunding obligations.
Hyper-partisan pre-election warfare led to both of the legislative setbacks, as Democrats avoided crossing swords with the Republicans, even to contest false Republican charges that the postal restructuring measure would represent a “government bailout.” It was proof that false charges on complicated matters during the “silly season” in Washington can sometimes trump the truth.
Retiree health benefit prefunding restructuring fails
The first legislative defeat occurred in the House last week when legislation (H.R. 5746) that would restructure the Postal Service’s retiree health prefunding payments never made it to a vote in the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee. Congressional observers pointed to the fadeout as sparked by Republican opposition, led by committee ranking Republican Darrell Issa (R-CA) who, in a Washington Times op-ed, called the postal restructuring bill a “government bailout.” NAPS President Louis Atkins was among those who objected to Issa’s use of the term. Atkins in a statement called Issa’s characterization of the restructuring bill “totally inaccurate.” (Click here to read President Atkins’ statement.)
Left out in the cold on the CR
The second legislative setback came on September 29 when the Senate and the House left the Postal Service out of a stopgap funding measure passed to ensure the federal government keeps running for the next two months. The Postal Service had sought postponement of at least $4 Billion of the $5.5 Billion payment due September 30 to prefund its future retiree health obligations. NAPS and other postal groups pushed for inclusion. Last year Congress included the Postal Service in the same short-term funding measure (called a “Continuing Resolution”), but this year no luck, primarily due to Republican opposition in the Senate, claiming that the Postal Service could get by without
PRC says no to exigency rate request
The third setback for the Postal Service came earlier today when the Postal Regulatory Commissionde nied the Postal Service’s request for an emergency postage increase, effective January 2.
Although the PRC in its decision agreed with the Postal Service that the severe recent recession, and the decline in mail volume, qualified as an “extraordinary or exceptional circumstance” under the 2006 postal reform law, the Commission found that the rate increase request “was not due to the recession, or its impact on mail volume, and instead an attempt to address long-term structural problems not caused by the recent recession.” In bitter irony, those structural problems include the burdensome retiree health prefunding payments, which Congress just days before declined to restructure.
What’s Next?
The consequences of these major setbacks are still reverberating, but this much is clear:
The Big Fix. First, Congress is more likely than ever to address a bundle of complex postal issues and craft a “Big Fix” bill next year. Whether that is good or bad remains to seen. Such a comprehensive measure could mandate delivery adjustments, post office closings, expanded USPS product authority, and changes to retiree health benefit prefunding.Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) introduced a comprehensive postal bill (POST Act, S. 3831) just last week that deals with some of these issues. Many of Carper’s proposals mirror legislative requests to Congress made by the Postal Service. Carper is likely to reintroduce the measure in the next Congress, probably in early 2011. NAPS most certainly will be engaged in the debate.
Real Cash Flow Problems. If Congress in 2011 fails again to remove the financial rope around the Postal Service’s neck and declines to restructure the burdensome retiree health benefit payment schedule, the Postal Service will undoubtedly come much closer to experiencing cash flow problems in 2011, problems far greater than it currently faces. It will have exhausted its borrowing authority, even if volume begins to return, and will have nowhere else to return.
Collective Bargaining Repercussions. Pessimistic cash flow forecasts and other signs of problems on the horizon with strengthen Postal Service management’s hand in its contract negotiations with APWU and the rural letter carriers that currently are underway. The unions know that they will need to make painful concessions in pay, benefits, and jobs. The only question is how deep those concessions will be and in what combination. Those contract talks are likely to end up in the hands of an arbitrator next year.
The arbitrator clearly will take the dismal financial condition of the Postal Service into consideration in rendering his decision, regardless whether Congress changes the law to expressly require the arbitrator to do that, a change the Postal Service is seeking. That outcome and the arbitrator’s decision itself will ripple into changes in pay, benefits and jobs for all postal employees, including supervisors.
November Doesn’t Entirely Matter. Finally, these observations are likely to remain accurate whether or not control of the House or the Senate changes hands as a result of the November elections. Only the speed and detail of the coming Congressional debate on a legislative “big fix” is likely to be influenced by which party is in control next year, important considerations nonetheless.
Bruce Moyer
NAPS Legislative Counsel
source: National Association of Postal Supervisors Legislative & Regulatory Update - Sept. 30, 2010