According to investigating troopers, two Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Deputies were traveling east on LA 527 while responding to an ATV accident. Both deputies were traveling in fully marked patrol units with their overhead light bars activated. While traveling east on LA 527, both units approached Deborah B. Wood, United States Postal Service worker, who was stopped partially in the roadway and on the right shoulder in her 2007 Jeep Wrangler, delivering mail.

The lead Sheriff’s unit steered safely around the Jeep Wrangler and continued east. The trailing Sheriff’s unit, a 2008 Ford Crown Victorian, operated by 68-year-old Deputy Joe Young, struck the Jeep Wrangler from behind causing it to veer right into the ditch area and overturn ejecting Mrs. Wood.

Mrs. Wood, who was unrestrained at the time of the crash, was air lifted to LSU Medical Center in Shreveport with life threatening injuries. According to Louisiana’s seatbelt law, United States Postal Service workers are exempt from wearing their seatbelts in the performance of their duties.

Deputy Young, who was restrained at the time of the crash, was transported to Willis Knighton Bossier Medical Center in Bossier City with minor injuries.

Although impairment is not suspected to be a factor, routine toxicology test results are pending and the crash remains under investigation.

Employees represented by the NRLCA primarily deliver mail in rural and suburban areas. The NRLCA represents 67,000 career employees and 48,000 non-career employees who substitute for career employees on their days off.

“The drop in the economy coupled with the shift to digital communications has created the greatest loss in mail volume since the Great Depression,” said Anthony Vegliante, chief human resources officer and executive vice president.

Mail volume peaked at 213 billion pieces in 2006 and plummeted to 177 billion last year. By 2020, mail volume is projected to drop to 150 billion pieces. In 2009 wages and benefits represented 78 percent of total operating costs — $56 billion.

Because Congress designated the Postal Service as an essential service to the nation, if negotiations come to an impasse, postal employees are not permitted to strike. Unlike the private sector, an arbitrator determines the final outcome and is not legally required to consider the Postal Service’s financial obligations when rendering a decision.

The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. It pays 78 percent of its employee Federal Employees Health Benefit Program insurance premiums while other federal agencies contribute 72 percent.

“The Postal Service needs flexibility to adjust to the nation’s changing mailing trends,” Vegliante continued. “Our dedicated employees are committed to their mission to deliver for America. We have a good working relationship with our unions and know they want to keep us strong in this changing environment. Our goal is to negotiate a contract that’s fair to our customers and employees and meets our financial and operational needs.”

Three other unions represent most other postal employees. The American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (APWU) began contract negotiations Sept. 1. The APWU represents employees who work as clerks, mechanics, vehicle drivers, custodians and some administrative positions. Employees represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC) deliver mail in metropolitan areas; and employees represented by the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, AFL-CIO (NPMHU) work in mail processing plants and Post Offices.

The NALC and NPMHU begin negotiations next year approximately 90 days prior to the contract expiration date. For additional background information on labor negotiations and the Postal Service’s workforce, please click on these links: Labor Negotiations and Workforce.

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.

via USPS News Link – Sept 1, 2010.

Now the US District Court for Connecticut has ruled in favor of the union, finding no evidence that it failed in its obligations to Jeunes:

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.” 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.

Just thought I’d mention that I was surprised not to find info on the rural carrier pay snafu that will leave up to 14,000 rural carriers without a paycheck. Oh, they are offering to pay 65% of your gross salary in the form of a postal money order, but not including ema for those of us that drive our own vehicles. Just in time to be the grinch that stole Christmas. What a mess and a nightmare!

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 I-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.)].

Critical to the Association’s “inside baseball” theory of the case are assertions and demonstrations by NRLCA witnesses that the Postal Service effectively prevents the rural carrier from complying with the requirements of Sections 212, 222, and 223 of the P0-603,which prescribe in detail the presentation of letter and flat mail to rural carriers and the casing of such mail by the carriers, when it continues to present Post-Wells letter-sized “fletters” to rural carriers in flat tubs with machine-processed flat-sized mail. Specifically, the Association witnesses described and demonstrated their understanding and belief that, subsequent to February 3, 2002, rural carriers, using the “taco” method set forth in the rural carrier training materials and taught in the Rural Carrier Academies, cannot possibly comply with the precise and exacting letter casing technique required by Section 222 when “fletters” are presented to them in flat tubs commingled with machine- processed flats, rather than separately in the “raw letter” stream.

Both such demonstrations by NRLCA involved “double-handling”. In the first one a carrier threw the pieces up to 61/8 inches to the side while he cased flats; while in the Association’s second demonstration, the carrier lifted letters out of the cupped flats, put the next flat on top of the “taco” and replaced the letters inside the “cradle” created by the cupped flats. (Tr. 50-51 and Tr. 118-121). However, the Association’s theses regarding the necessity of”double-handling” in the “taco-method” and the “impossibility” of compliance with Chapter 2 of the P0-603, were effectively rebutted by countervailing descriptions and demonstrations of alternative casing methods by Postal Service witnesses; both of which are casing methods consistent with Chapter 2, §222 and 223 and specifically endorsed and taught to rural carriers in Rural Carrier Academy training materials.

One such method demonstrated by a Postal Service witness allows a carrier to case flats and letters continuously without pausing to set pieces aside or to pull letters out of the case once placed within the cup formed by the large flats. (Tr. 258-59). See also, Instructor’s Guide. Standard Training Program for Rural Letter Carriers, Course 4450300, “Second Flats Receipt – Ml Cases”. at 6A-9 (Mar. 199 1) (NRLCA Exh. 7). The second method demonstrated by the Postal Service witnesses is informally referred to as the “stand-up” method, and it also is referenced in the both versions of postal training material adduced by the NRLCA. See, standard Training Program for Rural Carriers. Course 44503-00, The Rural Carrier Case, ‘Casing Flats,” at 5,2.2 (June 12, 2003) (stating that “Carriers who case flats standing up, should case the flat mail to the right of the case separation.”) (NRLCA 5); See also, Guidelines for Rural Carriers in the United States Postal Service, The Rural Carrier Case, “Casing Flats,” at 5.2.1-5.2.2 (Aug. 22, 2005) (stating that “Carriers who case flats standing up, should case the flat mail to the right of the case separation.”) (NRLCA 6). In the “stand-up” method of casing, rather than “cup” large flats, a carrier puts them in the separation for each address so that the short side of the flat is roughly parallel to the separation. When the carrier comes to a letter, it is cased in front of the fiats, and subsequent flats are cased behind preceding flats, a technique which apparently improves the efficiency of “pull down”, i.e., the process of removing the letter and flat mail from the individual separation and placing it in a container which is then taken to the carriers vehicle. (Tr. 275-276 and Tr. 277-79).

In my considered judgement, the Association failed to carry its burden of persuasion that the Postal Service is violating Article 19 and Chapter 2, §2 12.13, 212.2,222 and 223 of the P0-603, on and after February 3, 2002, in the facts and circumstances presented on the record before me in this case. Certainly nothing in the literal language of §212 of P0-603 Chapter 2 establishes an express bar or prohibition on the Postal Service’s machine-processing of Post-Wells 5 to 6 1/8 sized “fletters” on the AFSM 100 or UFSM 1000 flat-sorting machines or a contractual commitment to present such “fletters” for casing exclusively in the “raw letter stream”. Nor does the record demonstrate an implicit mutual intent of the parties to be bound by such a bar or commitment by persuasive evidence of an openly acknowledged, mutually recognized and consistently applied longstanding “past practice”. Finally, the Association failed to establish by a preponderance of the record evidence its primary premise that continued machine-processing of Post-Wells 5 to 6 1/8 sized “fletters” on the AFSM 100 or UFSM 1000 flat-sorting machines and presentation of Post Wells “fletters” in flat tubs requires “double-handling” during the “taco-method” of casing, thereby making compliance with the requirements of Chapter 2, § 222 and 223 of the P0-603 virtually “impossible”.

Based upon all of the foregoing, the grievance in National Arbitration Case No. QOOR-4Q-C 03089889 is denied.