Court: Postal Worker’s Vulgar Language is Sufficient Grounds for Removal
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.”
I respectfully disagree with the Court. The Connecticut District’s policy is an impermissively broad expansion of the Postal Service’s zero tolerance policy, originally set forth in the 1992 Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace. Due to a lack of consistency in the application of this policy, the Postal Service announced on May 24, 2007, in Postal Bulletin 22207, that it was “Clarifying the meaning of the Postal Service’s zero tolerance policy” in the revised Publication 108 Threat Assessment Team Guide. Vulgar language and profanity are not mentioned in either the Joint Statement or Publication 108.
Publication 108 states: “It is common for the term zero tolerance to be interpreted as resulting in a uniform and automatic response of dismissal for all reported incidents. Even though the meaning of zero tolerance is set out correctly in Postal Service policy, many employees focus on an absolutist interpretation without understanding the term in context….Discipline may be imposed, but it will be based on the nature and severity of the violation.”
Administrative Support Manual 315 prohibits subordinate organizational levels “clarifying,” supplementing (except as authorized in MI AS-310-78-3), or rewording policies or procedures from a higher level organization unless the instructions specifically direct or authorize this action. Postal districts that “clarify,” supplement or reword the national zero tolerance policy as expressed in the 1992 Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace should be challenged.
Don Cheney
Auburn WA
PUB 108 Threat Assessment Team Guide
1992 Joint Statement on Violence Read more
Postal Supervisor's Request For Medical Documentation After Return To Work Was Not Reasonable
October 9, 2009
In the Matter of the Petition by
ALBERT LONG
P.S. Docket No. DCA 09-202
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Albert Long
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Paul Ricucci
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Albert Long, filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982 on June 2, 2009. Respondent, United States Postal Service, sought to collect from Petitioner a debt in the amount of $497.22 based upon a payment of sick leave that was later converted by Respondent to leave without pay. A hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina on September 9, 2009.[1] The record in this matter was closed on September 21, 2009.[2] The following findings are based upon the record. Read more