Lee Schechinger, a mail carrier from Harlan (IOWA), was fired by the Postal Service after he won $1,000 on a TouchPlay lottery machine while on duty. It was first reported that he is a Rural Carrier. But  but records from the Iowa Unemployment Insurance Appeals Decisions show that Schechinger is a City Letter Carrier. The records also state that Schechinger was fired for violating a “Last Chance Agreement” issued shortly after a previous notice of removal from the Postal Service.

For readers unfamiliar with a “Last Chance Agreement” (LCA) here’s a brief summary:  A last chance settlement agreement is used when an employee is about to be discharged but instead is given a probationary period (one last chance), so that he or she may show improvement in the behavior problem which has led to the pending discharge. Normally, a LCA is signed by the employee and a union steward. If an employee violates the terms of the LCA and subsequently is discharged as a result–it is very difficult (but not impossible) to overturn in arbitration, mspb and courts . See Federal Court Overturns Letter Carrier Removal for Breach of Last Chance Agreement

The following are excerpts of the letter carrier’s unemployment appeal decision:

 FINDINGS OF FACT:
The claimant was employed from February 26, 2000 through June 1, 2006 and was most recently working as a full-time city letter carrier. He was previously discharged on April 22, 2005 for falsification of United States Post Office documentation. As a result of his grievance with the union, a settlement was reached and the claimant was reinstated per a last chance agreement. The last chance agreement required the claimant to comply with the postal codes of conduct as defined by postal rules and provisions of the Employee Labor Relations Manual (ELM) and the Postal Operations Manual (POM) 12. He was also required to be an exemplary employee and failure to meet any of the requirements as listed in his last chance agreement would result in his discharge.

The claimant has been suspended without pay for violating ELM 660 and POM 12 as a result of his gambling on March 17, 2006 while in uniform and on duty. Employees are prohibited from participating in any gambling activity while on duty. Employees are on duty from the time they punch in at the time clock in the morning until the time they punch out at night. The claimant filed a grievance and, as of June 1, 2006, the discharge was upheld by the union. Consequently, the employer placed the claimant in a non-pay status as of June 1, 2006 until the completion of the union arbitration.

The claimant was discharged for violation of a last chance agreement when he violated the rules of conduct by gambling on duty.

He does not deny gambling but contends he was not on duty since he was on his lunch break. The employer considers employees to be on duty until they clock out at the end of the day and at all times they are wearing their work uniform. The claimant was wearing his uniform while gambling and that was how the employer became aware of his actions, since someone complained about his activities.

 Lee Schechinger vs. US Postal Service