ARfITRATION PROCEEDL:4GS. Before. Peter Di Leone

Transcription

1 David Craig Potosi, Mo. C8N-4K-D ARfITRATION PROCEEDL:4GS Before Peter Di Leone In the Matter Between UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Potosi, Missouri OPINION AND AWARD Case No. ;CSN-41-D and- David Craig-Discharge NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS ; APPEARANCES For the Postal Service ; Tom Woodward-Labor Relations Representative William Rose-Postmaster Potosi, Iissouri J. T. Burnham-Postal Inspector Alice Butler-Labor Relations Assistant For the Union ; Charles J. Coyle, National Business Agent Richard Kimberly-Assistant Business Agent David Craig-Grievant

2 BACKGROUND FACTS AND CONTENTIONS The grievant, Javid Craig, received a Letter of Removal March 6, 1980, based upon a customer complaint relative to nondelivery of mail on City Route 3, Potosi, Missouri, The grievant in this case was a part time Flexible Carrier. On an average of once a week, he was assigned City Route 3 to case and deliver mail. Sometime in early January 1980, the Postmaster in Potosi, Missouri, received a complaint from a customer to the effect that his government disability check had not been delivered, Later in the month on two subsequent occasions, the same complaint was received from the same customer. On each of those occasions his government disability check had not been delivered on time. Subsequent to this third incident, the Postmaster at Potosi felt it unusual that only this type mail went undelivered, There was no complaint by this customer that any other type mail failed to be delivered. Even though the checks were later found to have been delivered and that none were declared to be missing, an investigation into the reasons for non-delivery at the appointed times was deemed advisable. On February 5, 21 and 29, 1980, certain methods were implemented on City Route 3 to determine why these checks were not reaching their destination. These were days that the grievant cased and delivered mail on the route.

3 At the hearing, the elaborate plans were revealed by the Postal Service. It involved the insertion of certain pieces of mail into the mailstream in order to determine the reason for the failure of the grievant to deliver these government disability checks to the complaining customer who turned out to be the ex-postmaster. On these three occasions it was determined that the marked pieces of mail were properly "cased" and in possession of the grievant before he started his route, but when it came time for delivery, the marked pieces of mail, all government disability checks, failed to reach the home of the customer, although other pieces of mail did. It was then determined by the Postal Service that the grievant was "willfully" and "maliciously" withholding first class mail for delivery in violation of law. The Postal Service contends that it had proof reasonable enough to believe that the grievant was guilty of a crime for which a sentence o imprisonment could be imposed, and, as a result, issued its Letter of Removal of March 6, The Union contends that the Postal Service had no reason to discipline the grievant "for failure either to mis-case or mis-deliver" the mail to the customer on City Route 3. Further, the Union contends that even if all of the"charges leveled against the grievant were admitted to be true and to have occurred;' the non-delivery was caused either because the grievant

4 "mis-cased or mis -delivered" his mail on the three occasions cited by the Postal Service. The Union claims that mis-casing or mis -delivery of mail by part time carriers has occurred at a higher percentage rate than the rate of regular carriers. The Union contends further that mis-casing and mis -delivering is a frequent occurance, especially in this installation because of the new techniques imposed by the present Postmaster. The Union argues that to single out one part time carrier for failure to deliver a certain government check on several occasions was entirely improper and to impose the severest penalty without adequate proof demonstrates the callousness of management in this instance. * * * * OPINION FThat disturbs this Arbitrator most about this case is the elaborate extent to which management went to determine reasons for the failure to deliver several government disability checks to an ex - Postmaster, without at least confronting the grievant with the evidence it had accumulated through the use of the Postal Inspector who testified at length concerning the methods used in its investigation. 'dhy would a Postmaster discharge a part time Flexible Carrier for what could easily have been a mis - cased or mis - delivered piece

5 piece of mail? Was it because the ex-postmaster and the grievant "never hit it off"? Was it because certain pressures were brougiit to bear upnn the present Postmaster to make an example of the grievant in order to demonstrate to the other carriers the high percentage rate of mis-cased and mis-delivered mail? Or was it just a means of demonstrating to all employees at this installation the importance of complying strictly with government regulations without any _further deviations? This Arbitrator could not decipher any legitimate reason for the harsh treatment meted out in this case. Here is a postal worker with a seniority of seventeen years, eleven of which was served as a Letter Carrier, being discharged for failure to deliver several government disability checks to an ex-nostal employee on an unproved charge of "willfully obstructing or retarding mail". If anything, the evidence is oven helming that the reason for the non-delivery was due to error either in mis-casing the mail by the grievant or that it fell out of order for one reason or another on the delivery route, which meant a delay in delivery to the customer. Fever was there evidence to suggest that the grievant had conducted himself in a manner which would remotely suggest that it was his intention to retard or obstruct mail delivery. At the hearing, the grievant testified that the route was one of the most difficult to case as well as deliver and that he pad mis-cased and mis-delivered on this route on occasions not monitored by the Postal Inspectors and it included times when he handled

6 government checks as well. Under severe cross-examination by a most competent and well prepared counsel for the Post Office, the grievant was able to develop his problems on this route and tell of mis-casings and mis-deliveries of other carriers, including the regular carriers, He denied that he had withheld any mail purposefully or that he nad any intentions to violate his purpose to carry out his assignments. He testified that he had delivered all the mail to his ex-postmaster on many many occasions in the past years and that he was dumbfounded to learn of the charges which led to his discharge but even more concerned that the Post Office saw fit to take action on a mistake without even so much as discussing the matter before taking action. The only difficulties caused by the grievant's mis-casing or mis-delivery here was the slight delay in the final delivery of several government disability checks to the complaining customer. On each of the occasions cited, the said checks were delivered on the next day by the regular carrier of the route, which further suggests a mis-casing was the cause of non-delivery. As a matter of fact the present Postmaster admitted under cross-examination that the Letter Carriers in his installation have mis-cased and mis-delivered in the past without so much as a warning. Even if one were to assume that the grievant was "trying to get back at his ex-boss" by withholding government checks, evidence of the type here presented would not prove that supposition.

7 AWARD Based upon the evidence adduced the undersigned Arbitrator is constrained to overturn the discharge of the grievant. Re shall therefore be re-instated to his job with restoration of all lost wages and benefits, less any earnings he may have received since the date of his removal. Peter Di Leone, Arbitrator Dated this / 7 day of 980 at Cleveland, County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio