Injured Letter Carrier Fired For Failing To Report Income From Rock Band
Filed under: Injured On Duty, NALC, legal cases, letter carriers, postal
Illinois Letter Carrier fired for failing to report income earned playing bass guitar for a rock band called BANG!
Truhlar sued the Postal Service and NALC Branch.
TRUHLAR v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
KENNETH T. TRUHLAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1652.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued December 3, 2009.
Decided April 12, 2010.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and MANION and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
In 1998, Kenneth Truhlar was working as a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service in Westmont, Illinois, when a car rear-ended his mail truck, injuring his back and neck. Truhlar sought partial disability payments but failed to disclose in the disability compensation paperwork that he was earning money playing bass guitar for a rock band called BANG!. When the Postal Service discovered the omission, it launched an investigation to determine whether he had engaged in misconduct. It ultimately concluded that he had, and in 2005, Truhlar was fired. He sued the Postal Service and his local union, John Grace Branch #825 of the National Association of Letter Carriers, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, claiming that the Service breached the collective bargaining agreement by firing him without just cause and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. Truhlar’s suit, which is a form of hybrid litigation, came to an end when the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Truhlar appeals that decision.
Although the parties disagree over a number of (ultimately immaterial) details, the following facts are undisputed. In order to collect partial disability payments following his injury, Truhlar periodically submitted a Department of Labor (DOL) form called the CA-7, which includes the following question: “Have you worked outside your federal job during the period(s) [for which you are claiming disability]? (Include salaried, self-employed, commissioned, volunteer, etc.).” Truhlar responded “no” to this question or failed to answer it on 24 CA-7 forms he submitted between 2000 and 2001, despite the fact that he earned between $8,775 and $11,000 performing with BANG! during that period. After a Postal Service inspector videotaped Truhlar playing with the band, another inspector interviewed him about the discrepancy. Truhlar claimed he misunderstood the question on the form. In June 2001, the Postal Service notified Truhlar that he was being placed on off-duty status for “failure to provide correct earning information on your Form CA-7.” A local union steward filed a grievance on Truhlar’s behalf, and when the grievance was denied, union representative Eric Smith appealed in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement’s (CBA) three-step grievance procedure. Read more
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.”
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.