PostalReporter News Blog

AUTOMATED RURAL JOB BIDDING
ALL RURAL CARRIERS CAN REVIEW AVAILABLE JOBS ONLINE
Last week, the Postal Service reached an important milestone in its initiative to reach out to employees using technology. Now, all rural carrier postings, bids and awards are available online.

Previously, not all rural carriers had access to the online bidding process. But now, all 120,000 rural carriers will have access to the automated bidding system, 24/7.

Craft employees can use any of the following ways to access the automated job bidding systems:

On LiteBlue:
• Go to the employee apps carousel at the center of the home page, or
• Click on the “My HR” tab at the top navigation bar of LiteBlue and then on the “Find Employee Apps” section, or
• Click on the employee apps button at the bottom of every My HR Page.

At HR kiosks, Web–bidding computers, or Interactive Voice Response and TDD/TTY for hearing–impaired employees.

Employees need their Employee ID number and USPS PIN to log on to LiteBlue and automated bidding systems.

source: USPS News Link

July 26, 2010
Sioux Falls, SD

US Attorney Brendan V. Johnson announced that a Yankton man charged with mail theft was sentenced on July 26, 2010, by US District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Brandon G. Novak, age 42, was sentenced to three years of probation and 40 hours of community service. Brandon G. Novak was indicted for five counts of theft of mail by postal employee by a federal grand jury on February 2, 2010. Novak was a full-time United States Postal Service employee, having been so employed since 1996. Novak was a rural mail carrier assigned to deliver mail on Rural Route 7 in Yankton, South Dakota. Between July 1, 2009, and October 15, 2009, Novak came into possession of correspondence and other mail items intended to be conveyed by the United States mail. Included within this correspondence and mail were items containing gift cards and coupons. On several occasions, Novak would take out store coupons and gift cards from mail and use them to buy personal items for himself. He pled guilty to one count of theft of mail on May 5, 2010. This case was investigated by the Office of the Inspector General – United States Postal Service. Assistant US Attorney Dennis H. Holmes prosecuted the case.

source: United States Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued a startling decision on June 16, 2010, in Jeunes v. Potter.  The Court upheld the removal of a postal employee who “admits that he used profanity during a verbal altercation with a co-worker on October 26, 2007, conduct clearly proscribed by the zero tolerance policy.”  The Court based its decision upon Connecticut District’s version of the zero tolerance policy, which bans “any type of vulgar language which would lead to a hostile workplace.”

Jeunes also filed suit against the National Rural Letter Carriers Association , arguing that the union had failed in its duty to represent him.

The US District Court for Connecticut has ruled in favor of the union. Here are some excerpts:

On October 26, 2007, while employed at the New Fairfield Connecticut USPS branch, Plaintiff had a verbal altercation with a co-worker on the work room floor. As a result, Plaintiff was placed on an off-duty status without pay on that date and terminated effective December 27, 2007. Plaintiff and Defendant dispute what exactly occurred on October 26, 2007. The USPS notice of removal informing Plaintiff of his termination states that several witnesses heard Plaintiff making vulgar and threatening remarks to a coworker and challenging him to a fight.

Plaintiff’s co-worker informed him of a package awaiting delivery on his route. The notice of removal alleges that Plaintiff responded to his co-worker with statements such as: “why you f***ing bothering me?” “what’s your f***ing problem,” “f***ing asshole,” f***ing pussy,” and “bring it on pussy.” (Def.’s Br. Summ. J. 4.) Plaintiff admits to making some of these comments but denies others. At least two other USPS employees who witnessed the incident signed statements confirming that Plaintiff used this language and threatened violence.

The USPS has a zero tolerance policy on violence, which states: “each and every act or threat of violence from this day forward will elicit an immediate and firm response that could, depending on the severity of the incident, include removal from the Postal Service.”

Prior to this incident, Plaintiff had been disciplined four times by the USPS. The USPS has previously sought Plaintiff’s removal for failure to disclose a criminal arrest on his employment application. In addition, in 2006, Plaintiff was suspended for seven days for poor attendance. In 2007, he was suspended for fourteen days for failure to follow instruction. In 2008, he was suspended for seven days for failure to be regular in attendance, unsatisfactory work performance and failure to follow instructions. Plaintiff also has a criminal record for assault and was arrested in 2005 in connection with a domestic altercation.

Plaintiff filed a grievance protesting his October 2007 off duty placement and November 2007 removal. He refused, however, to attend counseling through the employee assistance program, stating that the program “is for crazy people.” Defendant represented Plaintiff in his grievances through step three. However, after review by Mr. Anderson and general counsel, Defendant concluded that Plaintiff had no reasonable likelihood of success at arbitration.

On July 31, 2008, Mr. Anderson wrote Plaintiff informing him of Defendant’s initial decision and his right to provide additional information. Plaintiff provided no further information, but Mr. Anderson and the general counsel’s office reviewed Plaintiff’s file again after the twentyone day period. Both offices reached the same conclusion and Plaintiff’s grievance was withdrawn on August 25, 2008.

Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to summary judgment contains conclusory allegations that Defendant’s decision not to pursue arbitration was made in bad faith and was discriminatory. However, the record does not provide any evidence to support these allegations. In fact, the record reflects a reasoned, good faith decision on the part of Defendant and a Plaintiff unhappy with the outcome of his grievance but without a legal claim. It is clear that Plaintiff does not have an absolute right to arbitration either under the CBA or federal law.

Throughout the grievance process, Plaintiff was represented by Nate Gillotti. Plaintiff admits that he was satisfied by Mr. Gillotti’s handling of his grievance from steps one through three. Plaintiff’s only complaint regarding his representation is that “they didn’t take the case to arbitration.” Plaintiff offers no examples of discriminatory conduct or even negligent representation by his Union. Instead he states, “I just didn’t like the outcome.” When asked what Defendant could have done differently to fairly represent him, Plaintiff vaguely responded that the Union should have “fought better in these [prior] grievances I would have – – I wouldn’t be fired right now.”

Furthermore, the record reflects Defendant’s thorough and competent representation of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant took witness statements, filed the appropriate grievance forms and wrote letters on behalf of Plaintiff. Defendant followed its usual procedures before deciding to withdraw Plaintiff’s grievance from arbitration. NRLCA Director of Labor Relations Anderson and NRLCA General Counsel Gan each reviewed all material relating to Plaintiff’s case. Based on the documentation, both offices made the reasonable determination that because of Plaintiff’s hostile and threatening behavior during the incident at issue, history of discipline, refusal to engage in counseling, criminal record and the zero tolerance policy, Plaintiff’s grievance had “no reasonable likelihood of success in arbitration.” Following this determination, Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to provide the Union with additional information or arguments. Although Plaintiff did not provide any additional information, the file was still given a fresh and second look by both Mr. Anderson and attorney Jean Marc Favreau from the general counsel’s office. This fresh look did not result in a different conclusion and Mr. Gan recommended that the case be withdraw from arbitration.

Even taking this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is nothing in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant acted arbitrarily, in bad faith or with discriminatory motives.

There is no question of fact for a jury to decide.

http://www.postalreporternews.net/2010/06/21/court-postal-workers-vulgar-language-is-sufficient-grounds-for-removal/

US Attorney Brendan V. Johnson announced that Brandon G.Novak, age 42, of Yankton, appeared before US Magistrate John E.Simko on May 5, 2010, and pled guilty to one count of an indictment that charged him with five counts of Theft of Mail by a Postal Service Employee. The maximum penalty upon conviction is five years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine.

Brandon G.Novak was a full-time United States Postal Service employee,having been so employed since 1996. Novak was a rural mail carrier assigned to deliver mail on Rural Route 7 in Yankton, South Dakota. Between July 1, 2009 and October 15, 2009, Novak came into possession of correspondence and other mail items intended to be conveyed by the United States mail. Included within this correspondence and mail were items containing gift cards and coupons. On several occasions, Novak would take out store coupons and gift cards from mail and use them to buy personal items for himself.

The investigation was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General – United States Postal Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant US Attorney Dennis R. Holmes. A presentence investigation was ordered, and a sentencing date has not yet been set. The defendant was released on bond pending sentencing.

82-year-old Nebraska Rural Carrier has no plans on retiring

Brainard, NE, Rural Carrier Dwayne Raskey has delivered mail for 50 years without an accident. For that achievement, he has been named the recipient of the prestigious Joseph M. Kaplan USPS National Safe Driver of the Year award by the National Safety Council (NSC). Raskey was among 10 regional finalists for the award.

Raskey — the longest-serving rural carrier in the Central Plains District — was recognized at an NSC awards ceremony in Orlando, FL. The national award represents the “best of the best” for safe driving by professional drivers.

“I enjoy the people and enjoy the driving, that’s why I stay with it,” said Raskey of his job. His safety record behind the wheel has already been well documented. Earlier this year, he earned a rare 2 million mile safety award from the NSC.

Raskey says the keys to driving safely include being observant and driving according to the conditions. “If it’s muddy or snowy, you’ve got to slow down,” cautioned Raskey, whose route covers 96 miles on mostly gravel roads.

Brainard Postmaster Sherri Helman uses words like “dedicated, loyal, friendly, honest, and conscientious” to describe Raskey — who also hasn’t used a day of sick leave. “There’s never a day that he doesn’t come in with a smile on his face and a warm good morning greeting,” she said.

National Safety Council Honors Brainard’s Dwayne “Oley”Raskey (11/19/09)
 

National Safety Council Honors Brainard’s Dwayne “Oley”Raskey

BRAINARD, NE — Rural Carrier Dwayne “Oley” Raskey, who has faithfully delivered the mail for 50 years now without an accident, has been named the recipient of the prestigious Joseph M. Kaplan USPS National Safe Driver of the Year by the National Safety Council (NSC). Raskey was among ten regional finalists for the award.

Raskey received the award at the NSC Awards Ceremony in Orlando, Florida. The national award represents the “best of the best” for safe driving among professional drivers. Along with being the model of safety, Raskey is the longest serving rural carrier in the USPS Central Plains District, which includes Nebraska, most of Kansas and southwest Iowa.

“I’m honored to be selected for the award,” said Raskey, who attended the awards banquet with Jenny, his wife of 61 years.

Dependable as the sunrise, Raskey’s not only never had an accident, he’s never called in sick.

“My dad taught me that if you give someone your word you’ve got to stick by it, or if you’ve got a job to do you’ve got to do it,” said Raskey, whose nickname “Oley” comes from his Swedish ancestry.

“I enjoy the people and enjoy the driving, that’s why I stay with it,” said Raskey of his job. He’s so safe behind the wheel that earlier this year he earned the rare Two Million Mile Safety Award from the National Safety Council.

According to Raskey the keys to driving safely include being observant and driving the conditions.

“If it’s muddy or snowy you’ve got to slow down,” cautioned Raskey, whose route covers 96 miles on mostly gravel roads.

Brainard Postmaster Sherri Helman uses words like “dedicated, loyal, friendly, honest, and conscientious” to describe Raskey. “There is never a day that “Oley” comes in without a smile on his face and a warm good morning greeting.”

Raskey attributes his longevity to exercise, eating healthy and taking his vitamins. In his spare time he likes to work on his collection of antique vehicles or go polka dancing with Jenny.

“You’ve got to keep fit you know,” said Raskey.

source: USPS

From the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals 

Nels T. Beck seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) sustaining the decision of the United States Postal Service (“agency”) to remove him from his position of Rural Carrier at the agency’s Waterloo, Iowa facility. Beck v. U.S. Postal Service, No. CH0752070525-I-1 (January 24, 2008). We affirm.

Mr. Beck was involved in an automobile accident on February 12, 2007, while delivering mail on his rural route. Mr. Beck ran a stop sign and hit a vehicle driving through the intersection. The driver of the other vehicle was thrown from it, and the passenger had to be pried out by the fire department. Mr. Beck was injured.

The agency proposed his removal as a result of his negligent driving which resulted in the accident. Mr. Beck did not contest the fact that he had caused the accident. He argued for mitigation of the penalty to something less than removal. The agency’s deciding official considered the Douglas factors in assessing Mr. Beck’s request for mitigation. The deciding official rejected Mr. Beck’s argument that he was not to blame for the accident, due to his driving a substitute vehicle with which he was not familiar, and the light conditions which he asserted kept him from recognizing the ice upon which he was driving. Because the offense was serious, and because Mr. Beck had previously been disciplined for unsafe driving, the agency determined that removal was the appropriate penalty. No lesser penalty would be proper, as there was no indication that some other sanction would deter such unsafe acts in the future.

Mr. Beck appealed his removal to the Board. The administrative judge assigned to his case held a hearing at which Mr. Beck and the deciding official testified.

Mr. Beck did not deny that he failed to observe safe driving practices. He repeated his reasons for a lesser penalty. The administrative judge found convincing the testimony of the deciding official that Mr. Beck posed a distinct liability to the agency, and was not a good candidate for rehabilitation. The administrative judge reviewed the deciding official’s assessment of the Douglas factors and concluded that the agency had demonstrated that removal was appropriate.

Mr. Beck sought review of the administrative judge’s initial decision by the full Board. The full Board declined his petition for review, and Mr. Beck timely sought review in this court.

We must affirm the final decision of the Board unless we determine that it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise unlawful. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). When the final decision of the Board rests on findings of fact, we review those findings for substantial evidence.

In this case, there is no dispute as to the facts. Mr. Beck repeats his contention that removal was an excessive penalty, and he argues that his previous discipline for unsafe driving should not be considered in assessing the penalty for the February 2007 collision because that discipline was under grievance procedures when the deciding official proposed his removal.

On the propriety of the removal penalty, the issue boils down to whether the deciding official’s assessment of the Douglas factors amounts to reversible error. We perceive no error in the agency’s decision to remove Mr. Beck. Furthermore, we find no error in the agency’s reference to his earlier unsafe driving event. The Supreme Court has ruled that when considering the appropriate penalty for an offense, an agency may refer to other previous disciplined offenses even though they are under grievance when the agency is considering the appropriate penalty. Gregory v. U.S. Postal Serv., 534 U.S. 1 (2001).

Because the Board’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful, we affirm.

see case PDF
COSTS
No costs.

The National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA) objected to the Postal Service’s insistence that “fletters” (Flats and Letters) be processed on flats automation equipment when they can just as easily be processed as letters. As a result, they said mail is being improperly presented to rural carriers for delivery.

Former NRLCA President Gus Baffa’s Letter to USPS Contract Administrator Andrea Wilson (2/27/03)
The method of presenting certain mailpieces, mailpieces that the United States Postal Service has unofficially identified as “fletters”, to rural carriers constitutes a violation of, but not limited to, the USPS/NRLCA National Agreement MO-38, and Handbook PO-603. The Postal Service is consciously and by design diverting mail from the mailstream that is compatible with letter automation equipment to equipment intended to process oversized letter mail and flat mail. Although not strictly limited to the AFSM 100 flat sorting machines, the occurrence of the contractual violation is most commonly associated with the AFSM 100′s. This processing irregularity resuls in mail that is not properly presented to rural carriers. The Association seeks an appropriate remedy including an immediate cessation of this practice.

In a long-awaited decision, National Arbitrator Dana Eischen denied the Association’s class action grievance challenging the Postal Service’s practice of commingling letter-sized mail with flats when mail sorted on flat-sorting machines is presented to rural carriers for casing. We are extremely disappointed with the outcome and distressed at the limited analysis Arbitrator Eischen gave to the issue in the final four pages of his decision. Arbitrator Eischen did not acknowledge and ignored altogether most of the arguments advanced by the Association in support of the grievance. RuralInfo.net

Arbitrator Dana Edward Eischen’s 11-13-07 award on the merits of the NRLCA’s National “Fletters” grievance

As I understand it, the Association’s fundamental position is that the language of P0-603 Chapter 2, §212.13, 212.2,222 and 223, supra, and “past practice” thereunder, evidence a mutual intent of the parties, albeit by implication, that the Postal Service is contractually barred from presenting to rural carriers for casing Post-Wells machine -processed “fletters” which are “commingled” in flat tubs with other machine-processed flat-sized mail pieces. [Handbook P0-603 was jointly adopted by the parties in June 1991, as the successor to Handbook M-37, issued in May 1983. That handbook, in Sections 211,222 and 223, described the letter and flat presentation and casing provisions in virtually identical language to that in P0-603. (Postal Service Exhibit 7.) The prior version of Handbook M 37 was issued in December 1965 and likewise contains the same letter and flat presentation and casing requirements. (Postal Service Exhibit 8.)].

Below is the actual excerpt from the file.

Continue reading ‘Arbitrator Denies Rural Letter Carriers Fletters Grievance’ »

Submitted by ” Postal Pete ”

In Hodgenville, Kentucky , local officials investigate an accident in which a rural carrier backed into a couples living room. The carrier who had delivered a parcel used the front yard to turn around and struck the accelerator instead of the brake while in reverse. Postmaster Bob Hummer stated that the accident was under investigation by the postal service.

 

 

 The following is a press release from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas:

SEPT. 21, 2007

(HOUSTON, Texas) – A federal jury has convicted a former rural mail carrier for possessing stolen mail, United States Attorney Don DeGabrielle announced today.

Diana Quinones, 49, who had worked for the United States Postal Service since October 2001, was convicted of possessing stolen mail Thursday, Sept. 20, 2007.  The jury’s verdict comes after three days of trial testimony and approximately three hours of deliberation.

During the trial, which began Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2007, the jury heard testimony establishing that Quinones was assigned as a rural mail carrier at the Cypress, Texas, Main Post Office, located at 16635 Spring Cypress Road and delivered mail along Route 43.  Beginning in September 2006, complaints were received at the post office regarding the non-delivery of mail along Route 43.  In response to the complaints, special agents of the U. S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General initiated an investigation involving the placement and monitoring of undercover test packages for delivery along Route 43.  In January 2007, Quinones was observed removing a test package from the post office without authorization.  Later that day, as Quinones was preparing to leave the post office for the day in her personal vehicle, agents found the same package with the contents removed.  However, the item contained in the package was never recovered.  Quinones was immediately relieved of duty following the discovery of the package.

Quinones was originally charged with both theft of the mail and possession of stolen mail.  The jury acquitted Quinones of the theft of the mail charge alleged in the indictment. 
   

United States District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt, who presided over the trial, has set sentencing for Dec. 17, 2007.  Quinones faces a maximum of five years imprisonment and a  $250,000 fine for the possession of stolen mail conviction.  Quinones was released on bond after surrendering to federal authorities following her indictment in February 2007 and has been permitted to remain free on bond pending her sentencing. 

The case was tried by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bertram Isaacs and Special Assistant United States Attorney Tammie Y. Moore.