PostalReporter.com Blog

 Eleventh Circuit Rules Use of Trademarked Perforated Border on Postage Stamp Cards Was Descriptive and a Fair Use

What They Were Fighting About: International Stamp Art had a registered, incontestable trademark for the display of perforated borders in connection with greeting cards that resembled postal stamps. The US Postal Service began to sell cards with reproductions of stamps, and in some cases showed the perforations on the stamps. The district court granted summary judgment for the Postal Service, finding fair use of the trademark.

Eleventh Circuit : The evidence supported a finding that the USPS did not intend to mislead or confuse customers. The USPS included its trademark eagle on its products, ensuring that customers understood the source. The fact that USPS could have chosen not to market its stamps as art was not an alternative that demonstrated bad faith. USPS was not required to consult with counsel before selling its cards, and mere knowledge of plaintiff’s mark did not demonstrate the absence of good faith.

More from IP Law Observer or Case: International Stamp Art v. US Postal Service (11th Cir. 7/18/06 - No. 05-13492)

Related link: Stamp Dispute Lands at 11th Circuit

 Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) my view

by Dean Albrecht

Currently and more so in the future many on the job injured employees (IOD) will be thrust into the OWCP VR program. In order for this process to even be considered the employing Agency must notify OWCP that they are unable to accommodate the IOD within their restrictions. The VR program is being pushed to the forefront as a means to save Federal Agencies millions of dollars in compensation payments. If used properly and the “procedures” are followed the VR program is an excellent opportunity for IOD employees to become productive. The VR program is more effective if after being “Culled” from employment with the USPS the IOD employee files for Disability Retirement. By doing this the IOD employee will maintain their health and life insurance benefits.

      There seems to be a pattern that surrounds any government program that is thrust into use, and that is abuse. Quotas need to be made and the money spent into the planning and development of such a program needs to be recovered and a profit must be shown. Those who are appointed to run these programs are under a tremendous amount of pressure to produce numbers that show the program is working. This is where the “abuse” is factored in, and proper procedures do not get followed. When that happens (and it is happening) the individuals who are harmed the most are the IOD employees, through loss of income. In basic terms and in a nut shell this is how the program works: (more…)

(New York) With little explanation, regional postal officials have imposed an embargo on outgoing letters and packages destined for Israel and Lebanon.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Westchester district office notified its post offices Thursday that the embargo would take effect Friday.

There was no indication when mail for the neighboring war-torn nations might again be accepted at post offices in Westchester, Rockland, Orange and parts of Putnam and Sullivan counties.

“I would say about 90 percent of our community, they mail stuff back to their family in Israel,” said Matthew Thomas, supervisor of customer service in the Monsey post office on Melnick Drive, which is located in a predominantly Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish community. Full Story from THE JOURNAL NEWS

Retired employees would be able to return to government work without a pay cut in more situations than currently allowed, under an Office of Personnel Management proposal. Salaries for retirees who rejoin the federal work force typically are reduced by the amount of their annuities to prevent them from earning both a full salary and full annuity. However, OPM currently can waive this so-called dual compensation requirement on a case-by-case basis or allow agencies to waive the requirement when they need to hire retirees to meet emergencies that pose “an immediate or direct threat to life or property or emergencies resulting from other unusual circumstances.” Federal Times

Federal Register Notice (excerpts)

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing proposed regulations to amend the criteria under which OPM may grant dual compensation (salary off-set) waivers on a case-by-case basis, or delegate waiver authority to agencies. This amendment clarifies that OPM may grant or delegate to agencies the authority to grant such waivers in situations resulting from emergencies posing an immediate and direct threat to life or property or situations resulting from unusual circumstances that do not involve an emergency. The proposed changes will make it easier for agencies to reemploy needed individuals when faced with unusual circumstances.

DATES: We will consider comments received on or before September 19, 2006.

Sec.  553.203  Status of individuals serving without reduction.

 Reemployed civilian annuitants. Annuitants reemployed with full salary and annuity under an exception granted in accordance with this part are not considered employees for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code. They may not elect to have retirement contributions withheld from their pay; they may not use any employment for which an exception is granted as a basis for a supplemental or recomputed annuity; and they may not participate in the Thrift Savings Plan

 

 Postal workers from Bucks County and communities as far away as Texas and Florida expressed satisfaction after reading a Courier Times story about one of their peers who won a ($500,000) lawsuit in federal court against supervisors in the Langhorne Post Office. Several respondents took time to recount experiences with their bosses they said mirrored what Willingboro resident Willie Brown went through before he lost his job. Many described working conditions that raise questions about how the U.S. Postal Service oversees its managers. “My observation is that the postal service promotes a culture of intimidation and harassment. It appears that supervisors have financial incentives, which lead them to treat employees in a very hostile fashion,” . Financial incentives in the form of bonuses, based on keeping employee sick leave and work-related injuries down, pressure postal supervisors to put the squeeze on their workers, resulting in untenable working conditions,  [Brown’s attorney Marc] Weinstein said. Full story from MSNBC

Fired Postal Worker Wins Reinstatement, $500,000
The worker, Willie D. Brown, a counter clerk at the Langhorne Post Office, claimed that his firing was the result of discrimination and harassment by his bosses. According to court records, friction between Brown and his supervisors began in late 2002 when Brown, who had been with the postal service since 1981, assisted a co-worker in bringing charges of discrimination against her male supervisors. Following that incident, the postal managers at the Langhorne office began a “short and bellicose campaign to eliminate” Brown, who, up until that time, had a spotless employment record, court papers state. The suit demanded that Brown’s employers end their discriminatory conduct and reimburse Brown for back pay, salary increases, bonuses, insurance and other benefits lost since the time he was fired (Bucks County Courier Times)

Iniguez to lead national energy management strategies
Daley to act as Pacific Area Vice President

Deputy Postmaster General Pat Donahoe has announced that Al Iniguez will take on the critical role of leading the Postal Service in developing and implementing national strategies to help manage our rapidly escalating energy costs.

“Sharp growth in fuel costs — both for our vehicles and for our facilities — was a key driver of our recent filing for a rate adjustment in 2007,” said Donahoe. “We owe it to our customers to make every effort to control our spending for energy.”

Donahoe said Iniguez’s extensive operational experience — both in his current assignment as Pacific Area Vice President and previously as district manager and senior plant manager — provide an excellent background for the new role. Effective immediately, Iniguez will work closely with Operations, Facilities and Supply Management to pursue a multi-faceted approach to our challenges.

A 32-year postal veteran, Iniguez will continue to report to the Deputy Postmaster General and Chief Operating Officer.

Northland District Manager Michael Daley will act as Pacific Area Vice President, overseeing postal operations for California, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa and the trust territories.

Daley, a 34-year postal veteran, has led the Northland Performance Cluster — one of the nation’s largest — since 2002.

Before being named to his current position, he served as Postmaster of Portland, OR. His other postal positions have included director of City Operations, Field Operations, and Human Resources in the former Portland Field Division. Daley received the Postmaster General’s Award in 2005.

source: USPS

(Sioux City JOurnal) U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin on Wednesday announced he had included a provision in a transportation appropriations bill that would halt the U.S. Postal Service from consolidating mail processing facilities, including Sioux City’s, until a government oversight entity completes a follow-up report.

The Government Accountability Office is undertaking a follow-up to the 2005 USPS feasibility study to consolidate the Sioux City mail processing facilities elsewhere, most likely Sioux Falls.

Expressing strong concern about the way USPS is proceeding in mulling consolidations of 51 mail facilities nationwide, Harkin secured the provision in the transportation bill Wednesday. It is not binding law that the consolidations cannot not take place until the GAO finishes the studies, but it is the recommendation of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Harkin said such recommendations are generally followed by federal agencies like the postal service.

The GAO study is expected to be done in early 2007. Sioux City Journal

HARKIN SECURES PROVISION IN APPROPRIATIONS BILL TO STOP SIOUX CITY POSTAL CENTER CONSOLIDATION UNTIL GAO STUDY IS COMPLETE

(Press Release) – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today announced that he has successfully included a provision in the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development (TTHUD) Appropriations bill that would prevent the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from consolidating mail processing facilities until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completes its follow-up report. Senator Harkin had requested this GAO report in response to USPS plans to close the Sioux City Postal Center. (more…)

(Contra Costa Times) No one was injured when a package with fireworks inside self-ignited and began smoldering inside the Walnut Creek’s (Calif.) main post office this morning, officials said.Police were told of a suspicious package smoldering inside the post office’s sorting room about 4:25 a.m.

A postal worker (mail processing clerk) took the package to a safe location outside the building in the 2000 block of Broadway. The worker told police that the package was giving off a chemical odor.

Fire and hazardous-material crews responded and found that the package had self-ignited.

“Basically when we arrived, a postal worker noticed smoke coming from the container so they put it outside,” county hazardous materials spokesman Neal Price said. “We inspected the package from a distance of about 5 to 10 feet and observed no off-gassing.”

A team member wearing protective equipment opened the box about 6:30 a.m.

“We noticed it was (chinese party) poppers,” Price said. “Some of them had gone off inside the package. We just separated it out and turned it over to the postal inspector.”

source: CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Burrus Update, July 19, 2006

The outlook for passage of postal reform legislation in this session of Congress appears more uncertain than ever, largely as a result of the Bush administration’s renewed insistence that anti-labor provisions be included.

At a meeting last week attended by key congressional sponsors and White House officials, the administration made clear its demands for support of the legislation: The White House insists that the provisions allowing the unions to defer unresolved collective bargaining issues to binding arbitration be modified to require arbitrators to consider the economic health of the Postal Service in their final decision.

An additional point of contention involves placing limits on the USPS’ ability to adjust postage rates. At the urging of the large mailers, the administration is demanding that postage-rate increases — with very few exceptions — be limited by increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The White House continues to oppose provisions that would limit excessive worksharing discounts — which the APWU supports — and is adamant that the legislation must cut the rights and benefits of injured workers, which the APWU opposes.

That these issues are being considered is a matter of extreme importance to the American Postal Workers Union, and is confirmation of our position: “This is bad legislation that would do more harm to the Postal Service and its employees than continuing under current law.”

Large corporate advertising mailers supported the White House demands.

As expressed in previous Updates, the APWU position has been criticized by some in the postal community as being supportive of the position taken by the Board of Governors and the postmaster general. Despite that criticism, we have been consistent in our view that postal reform provides an opportunity for certain political forces to pursue their anti-worker, anti-service agenda. We feel that this threat far outweighs any possible beneficial effects of legislation.

Those organizations that proclaimed they had forged a “working relationship” with corporate mailers are now discovering that in the final analysis commercial entities will follow the dollar and pursue legislation only insofar as it is favorable to them. The phrase “But will you still love me in the morning?” is apropos as an analogy for those relationships that were boasted of in the early days of the quest for reform, but are now fraying at the edges.

William Burrus
President

www.apwu.org

 At least that is one of the events which lead up the removal of a Warren, Michigan letter carrier after getting injured o nthe job. David Aleck was removed from his position as letter carrier based on three charges: (1) “failure to perform duties in a safe manner.” He was driving the vehicle without wearing a seat belt and with the door open. Aleck fell from the postal vehicle he was operating, and the vehicle then struck a parked car. The second charge was (2) “failure to immediately report an accident.” The accident occurred at 11:00 a.m., but he did not report it until 12:45 p.m. The third charge was (3) “failure to follow instructions to report to clinic.” Aleck failed to obey the instructions of his supervisor that he report to a medical clinic for an evaluation. MSPB ruled removal was justified and the federal circuit court found no reason to overturn that decision. 

The following is the condensed HTML (without references) version of  decision. PDF version can found here.

Mr. Aleck was removed from his position after an incident that occurred on February 19, 2005. On that day, Mr. Aleck fell from the postal vehicle he was operating, and the vehicle then struck a parked car. Following an investigation of the incident, the agency removed Mr. Aleck based upon three charges. The first charge was “failure to perform duties in a safe manner.” In regard to this charge, the agency alleged that Mr. Aleck fell out of the vehicle because, contrary to agency policy and regulations, he was driving the vehicle without wearing a seat belt and with the door open. The second charge was “failure to immediately report an accident.” In regard to this charge, the agency alleged that the accident occurred at 11:00 a.m., but that Mr. Alleck did not report it until 12:45 p.m. The third charge was “failure to follow instructions to report to clinic.” In regard to this charge, the agency alleged that, following the accident, Mr. Aleck failed to obey the instructions of his supervisor that he report to a medical clinic for an evaluation.

Mr. Aleck appealed his removal to the Board. On August 9, 2005, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned issued an initial decision based upon the documentary record after Mr. Aleck waived his right to an evidentiary hearing. In his initial decision, the AJ (i) found that the agency had established the charges against Mr. Aleck by a preponderance of the evidence; (ii) rejected Mr. Aleck’s affirmative defenses (based upon allegations of procedural error and disability discrimination); and (iii) determined that the penalty of removal was reasonable.  Based upon these rulings, the AJ sustained the agency’s action removing Mr. Aleck from his position.  The AJ’s initial decision became the final decision of the Board on December 8, 2005, when the Board denied Mr. Aleck’s petition for review for failure to meet the criteria for review set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). Final Decision. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Mr. Aleck argues that the agency did not sustain its burden of proof with respect to the three charges against him. He thus urges that the decision of the Board is not supported by substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence” is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” We have reviewed the Board’s decision concerning the charges against Mr. Aleck in light of the evidence of record. Having done so, we have no difficulty concluding that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore reject Mr. Aleck’s argument with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Mr. Aleck claims that the agency committed harmful procedural error when, during its initial investigation of the February 19th incident, it denied him union representation. The AJ considered this claim and determined that, while the agency had committed a “technical violation” of the right to representation, the violation constituted harmless error.  (“Harmful error in procedures . . . raises the question: Did the wrongful procedure harm the employee in the presentation of his defense so that a different result might have been reached?”);  (“[I]n an appeal of an agency disciplinary decision to the Board, the agency’s failure to follow bargained-for procedures may result in its action’s being overturned, but only if the failure might have affected the result of the agency’s decision to take the disciplinary action against the individual employee.”). Based upon the record before him, the AJ concluded that Mr. Aleck failed to establish the likelihood that, had he received union representation at the initial investigation, the agency might have reached a different conclusion in the matter. We see no error in this conclusion. We also see no error in the AJ’s rejection of Mr. Aleck’s argument that harmful procedural error occurred because he was not personally present during the oral reply to the charges against him. See id. at 5-6. The AJ found—and substantial evidence supports the finding—that Mr. Aleck’s representative was present for the oral reply and indicated that Mr. Aleck did not wish to be present.

Finally, Mr. Aleck argues that the penalty of removal was unreasonable. After considering the appropriate “Douglas factors,” however, the AJ determined that the penalty of removal was reasonable and did not represent an abuse of discretion. Based upon the evidence of record before us, we see no reason to disturb that ruling.

542.1 Employee Claims for Injury or Illness
542.11 Traumatic Injury
542.111 Notice
The notice of traumatic injury is given on Form CA-1.

542.112 Time Limit
FECA requires that written notice of a traumatic injury be given by the employee, or person acting on behalf of the employee, within 3 years of the injury. However, failure to give notice on Form CA-1 within 30 calendar days from the date the injury occurred will result in a loss of entitlement to COP and may also result in a loss of compensation rights if the claim for compensation is not filed within 3 years. In order to protect their own interests and to ensure an uninterrupted income, employees should give notice or have someone give notice on their behalf, immediately after the traumatic injury occurs.