NALC Young: It’s time to stop the ‘run amok’ Postal OIG
MESSAGE from National Association Of Letter Carriers’ President WILLIAM H. YOUNG
Nearly every federal agency has an Inspector General’s office that investigates charges of misconduct and roots out contracting fraud, which the Pentagon’s IG just did with a report on Iraq spending. The Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General claims its investigations saved more than $8 million in 2006. Even if that’s true, the office has wasted millions of dollars itself and the NALC has called on Congress to launch an investigation to put a stop to it.
The OIG has run amok in recent months, unleashing a reign of terror on letter carriers in dozens of post offices across the country. Time and again, overzealous agents have swooped into stations and placed groups of carriers on emergency suspensions pending removal—all for activities and work methods long approved by their supervisors or local postmasters. Like a bunch of fanatic Barney Fifes, OIG hotshots have seized dozens of carriers on dubious charges without proper investigations or respect for our members’ due process rights. They also have routinely ignored the Postal Service’s obligations to consult and inform the NALC on matters involving discipline set out in our National Agreement.
A couple of examples will show you what I mean. In one station in the Southwest Area, OIG “Special Agents” descended one day last fall and placed dozens of carriers on EP status for “mishandling the mail.” Their crime? Returning undeliverable circulars to the post office. The mail pieces in question were total market coverage circulars destined for apartment buildings with high levels of vacancies, as well as those sent to patrons whose mail receptacles were filled to capacity. The practice of returning such circulars was well-known to managers and built into the route adjustment process. Yet the OIG is seeking to remove these carriers.
Needless to say, the NALC is fighting these removals and expects to prevail. But the damage already done is serious. The OIG’s scattergun approach resulted in numerous carriers being suspended even though they were on leave or not scheduled to work on the day in question. Some of the falsely accused carriers were eventually returned to work, but only after months of agony, during which time they lost their cars, their homes and their credit ratings.
In similar instances in the Great Lakes Area, the OIG has refused to give NALC representatives copies of “reports of investigation” or its agents’ notes. In other cases, it claims the right to decide what evidence is relevant, providing edited versions of videos and notes instead of all the evidence available, including exculpatory evidence.
The OIG seems to think it can intimidate carriers and threaten witnesses with impunity. In one case, they snatched a carrier off the street and interrogated him in a van.
This must stop. So, last month I called on key members of Congress to request an investigation of the OIG by another watchdog—the GAO, the Government Accountability Office. The OIG’s annual budget exceeds $200 million. Surely, it has better things to do than harass letter carriers, who are doing a difficult job and doing it honestly and well. If ever there was a federal agency wasting money and sabotaging a vital public service, this is it.
The top management of the Postal Service is not blameless in this. The USPS has an obligation to adhere to the due process procedures established by our labor agreement. But instead of curbing the OIG, they hide behind a memorandum of understanding that requires the OIG to respect our National Agreement. Clearly that is not enough. The USPS must act now to ensure the OIG’s compliance or renegotiate the MOU to include some teeth.
As it stands, the OIG and its special agents honor our labor agreement only when it is convenient. We will not tolerate this any longer. It’s time for the OIG and the USPS to get their act together. If we can’t make ’em do it, it may take an act of Congress. But it will get done.
source: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS Postal Record - MARCH 2007
Related links:
APWU Questions Postal Inspection Service Transition to OIG
PDF on Investigative Interviews came from NAPS in Portland OR. Many managers are unaware of their right to representation. ELM 651.2
March 21st, 2007 at 2:30 am
some how in the long run off it,,,It will end up loosing carriers and new contract routes will pop up. Perhaps the OIG should crack down on more Postmasters instead.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:06 am
why wont the oig investigate, corrupt manager that getting away with millions of dollars, thur procurment, purchase to ficility that dont exist, like nji bmc maint. dept.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Incompetent beyond any NORMAL PROCEDURE, I WON my job back after nearly TWO MONTHES of this TRASH of what THEY, the O.I.G. , does not HAVE TO PRODUCE, PROVE, ADHERE TO, the agency is ignorant. You can either FALL: to never get up, SIT: Listen to the lies of your Employer as to this, or STAND: Fight back.
I have not a problem fighting every inch of such TRASH. Our agreements state over and over and over again, ONLY UNDER JUST CAUSE, PROVEN JUST CAUSE , REPORTED, REVIEWED, EXPLAINED, DISCUSSED, TOTALLY TRUE CRIMES AGAINST our agreed RULES would there REMOTELY be the NEED of such an IMAGINARY AGENCY.
The Postal O.I.G. is incompetent period, and will be held to the REAL LETTER of the LAW by this son of attorneys.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:09 am
DISCARDED DELIVERABLE MAIL:
Notices of Removal:
After CAREFUL, INTENSE investigation by the ALWAYS ACCURATE Office of the Inspector General, Letters of Removal are now sent to ALREADY SUSPENDED Willow Place Carriers by Houston Postal Labor.
UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT is the final charge, after very accurate study and investigation.
We Differ:
No Adequate Notice of Such Extreme Charges given prior to punishment, suspensions.
No NOTICES made, deliberately EXCLUDING presentation of the nature of such interviews and discipline.
Predetermined PUNISHMENT implemented contrary to the very ARTICLE 16 ,which basic principle states that DISCIPLINE should be CORRECTIVE in NATURE.
DISREGARD of such BASIC PROCEDURES has been challenged, DEFINED, and Reviewed ALREADY in ARBITRATION as follows:
##Failure to Provide Garrity and Kalkines Warnings in Disciplinary Investigations
This is a summary of Arbitrator George R. Shea’s decision in case C00C-1C-D-05132381 in which the issue concerned a disciplinary action taken against an employee
The arbitrator sustained our grievance, he found the Postal Service did not have just cause to place the Grievant in an Emergency Placement status or issue her the Notice of Proposed Removal or issue her the Letter of Decision implementing that Removal. He then reinstated the Grievant to her prior Postal employment and awarded the Grievant full restitution of any pay, benefits or status lost by her as a result of the contested Emergency Placement and Removal.
The grievant was issued an Emergency Suspension in which it was claimed that she was claiming sick leave while working for the Internal Revenue Service. Shortly thereafter she was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal and a Letter of Decision charging the grievant with “Improper Conduct”.
The Union maintained that the Service did not have just cause to issue the Grievant the Emergency Placement; in that, the Service did not establish the existence, at the time it made the contested Placement, of the requisite conditions for an Emergency Placement pursuant to Section 16.7 of the Agreement. The Union further maintained that the Service did not have just cause to issue the Grievant the contested, Removal; in that, the Service failed to establish that (a) the Grievant knowingly violated a clear, promulgated rule restricting her use of sick leave (b) the Service afforded the Grievant the procedural and substantive due process protections required by the just cause standard, the Agreement or the law during its investigation of the charge upon which the Removal was based.
The arbitrator ruled that when an employee in suspended under the provisions of Article 16 Section that an act of discipline is imposed and that discipline must be for just cause. He found the Service’s obligation to meet the requirements of the just cause standard when issuing an Emergency Placement is modified only to the narrow extent necessary to effectuate the immediate action authorized by Section 16.7 of the Agreement. In so ruling he found just cause did not exist for the Emergency Suspension.
In regards to the Postal Service’s position that Section 513.312 of the ELM is clear he found the rules cited by the Postal Service as being violated were not clear. In this regard he stated:
The Arbitrator cannot agree with the Service’s assertion that the restrictions of ELM Section 513.312 are so obvious and self evident as to be known to employees without benefit of specific notice of them. The prohibitive language itself recognizes that such activity is not malum per se, as it may be authorized by an appropriate authority.
The arbitrator also ruled the disciplinary action was fatally flawed as the Postal Service failed to provide the grievant with their rights as contained in the Garrity and Kalkines court decisions. In this regard he ruled:
The Service also charged-the Grievant with a violation of ELM Section 666.6, by reason of her failure to respond to her supervisor’s questions during the pre-discipline interview of June 20, 2005. It is generally accepted that a proper investigation of the charges precipitating discipline includes the employer’s prediscipline interview of the charged employee.’ Such interviews have two very distinct components. The first component involves. the employer’s obligation to present the charges and supporting evidence to the employee who is to be discipline. This component provides the employee with the opportunity to respond to, defend against and clarify the charges. It further provides the employee with the opportunity to contest, qualify or explain the evidentiary foundation of the charges and to provide the disciplining official with any evidence of mitigation of the charged offense. Finally, this component allows the employee to assess the incriminating implications, if any, of the interview. . . . . The second component of the pre-discipline interview, which may be part of the employer’s more comprehensive administrative investigation, provides the employer with the opportunity to interrogate the employee in order to ascertain his/her knowledge of and involvement in the acts or omissions which are the basis of the discipline. Arbitrators and the courts have held that the employee has a contractual or legal obligation to co-operate with the employer’s administrative investigation. This obligation includes the employee’s duty to respond truthfully to the employer’s relevant questions, even if such responses may lead to the discipline of the employee or to the filing of criminal charges against him/her.
The employer’s right to inquire of the employee and the employee’s corresponding obligation to respond are not absolute. If the employee has a reasonable personal belief that either component of the pre-discipline interview may expose him/her to discipline and requests Union representation during the interview, the employer is required to delay or suspend its questioning until such representation is provided.
In the event, the interview also involves the potential exposure of the employee to criminal charges, the public employer’s right to inquire of its employee is further limited by. the employee’s constitutional right against self incrimination. In such circumstances, the employer is legally required to notify the employee that (a) the interrogation may elicit responses which could expose him/her to criminal prosecution, (b) the employee has a constitutional right to remain silent (c)the employer intends to discharge the employee if he/she refuses to respond to the its inquiries and (d) the information involuntarily provided by the employee and the investigative fruits of that information may not be used in a criminal prosecution of the employee on related criminal charges.
The legal issues raised in such situations are many and complex. The “Use Immunity” granted to the employee by the courts in subsequent or concurrent criminal proceedings is not self executing. The evidentiary exclusion of this “Coerced Evidence” must be initiated by the employee\defendant in the criminal proceeding. It is premised upon the defendant’s ability to establish that (a) the evidence was involuntarily disclosed in a situation of disciplinary coercion or (b) the employer failed to comply with the “Garrity Notification” requirements. The “Use Immunity” exclusion of such “Coerced- Evidence” may be further limited by reason of the propriety, scope, nature and relevancy - of employer’s questions and the corresponding attributes of the employee’s responses to those questions and the employee’s proper preservation of his/her constitutional right or privilege.
The Court in Kalkines v. U.S. (570; 473 F2d 1391) determined that, in the absence of the employer’s notification to the employee of the safeguards established by the Court in Garrity v. New Jersey (385 q.S. 493), a public employer may not discipline, discharge or remove an employee from his/her public employment based upon the charge that employee failed to cooperate in the employer’s administrative investigation when that investigation may expose an employee to criminal prosecution.” In the context of this legal labyrinth, the Court in Kalkines v. US further held that it would be reasonable for an employer to delay or suspend its interrogation of an employee when he/she requests - the presence of his/her attorney during the interview.
In consideration of the provisions of Articles 3 and 16 of the Agreement, the Arbitrator determines that when the Service disciplines an employee for a violation of ELM 666.6, the just cause standard requires the Service to establish that it provided the employee with the notification required by the Garrity and Kalkines decisions. In the opinion of the Arbitrator, the absence of such proof in this matter is fatal to the Service’s claim that it had just cause to Remove the Grievant for a violation of ELM Section 666.6
Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director [APWU]
Maintenance Division
In such arbitration, violations of rights superceded the enactment of punishment first. Consider your cause !
The FOLLOWING pages review your ACCURATE INVESTIGATION.
THE ACCUSATION :
Willow Place Letter Carriers , over two thirds of the stations carriers, DELIBRATELY skipping PROCEDURES as posted and written in the M-41 standard operations manual.
WE THINK NOT !
No question made as to why so MANY lost CONCEPT OF THE M-41.
WE STATE: Multiple Deviations by MANY MANAGERS to the procedures of the standard operations of Willow Place
Station.
WE STATE:
EXTREME LACK OF TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF OPERATIONS present at the Willow Place Station.
CLEAN CASE POLICY ( NO WHERE IN M-41 ): Nothing to be left above the case, route, on the route, or below the given route case.
WHO IMPLIMENTED THIS. FIVE managers by this authors count INSISTED on:
EXTREME Conditions on Routes: Carriers were INSTRUCTED to not have questionable mail under cases ( There is ALWAYS QUESTIONABLE MAIL);
CARRIERS instructed to Remove tags from trays and tubs ( A Clerical Task );
CARRIERS instructed to take ALL EXTRA UBBM MAIL DIRECTLY TO A UBBM BIN, CRAB CAGE.
PLACE UNDELIVERABLE BULK MAIL IN THE DESIGNATED LOCATION FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO DISPOSAL AS WASTE. (242.31)
( Clerks NOT Picking Up The UBBM, DUTY WAS GIVEN TO CARRIERS , CONTRARY TO PROPER PLACEMENT OF RETURNED MAIL, and Time Needed For Review by MANAGEMENT, IF EVER REVIEWED).
THIS DEVIATION FROM THE M-41 DEFEATS THE INDIVIDUAL CHECKS AND BALANCE OF THE M-41.
Regardless of the NUMBER of CIRCULAR FLYERS returned, IF THE M-41 HAD BEEN FOLLOWED CORRECTLY, the given mails would have been AT EACH ROUTE for SUPPOSED REVIEW BY Managers and Supervisors.
In my FIRST Eleven years of postal service the procedure of the M-41 was followed, upon return to station , a carrier placed all mail on case, marked such mail carrier review, and was afforded time the NEXT DAY to handle questionable mail.
ONLY at this Station, Willow Place, was the concept changed, with the INSISTANCE a Carrier place UBBM Directly in BINS, without a daily or morning REVIEW by Manager of what was bought back. In addition , this carrier was INSPECTED FIVE TIMES in one year, yet Professional Inspection Teams DID NOT CHALLENGE the PRACTICES of ANY Manager’s POLICY, DISPITE DIFFERENCES to the M-41.
Such FINDINGS may have been so DISREGARDED by the Office of the Inspector General, But These DEVIATIONS to PROCEDURE explain why so many CARRIERS FOLLOWING DAILY INSTRUCTION VARY from TRAINED M-41 operations.
CARRIERS NEVER ESTABLISH , SET , DIRECT, CHANGE, or ORDER Procedure POLICY. WHO DOES ? ONLY THE MANAGERS. THIS EFFECT OF INTERFERING WITH KNOWN PROCEDURE DAILY, MERELY TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF CLEANED, ORDERLY ROUTES, ESPECIALLY ON MBU AND APARTMENT ROUTES CREATED THIS SUPPOSED PROBLEM.
CARRIERS DO NOT SET POLICY DAILY, WEEKLY, OR EACH TIME A NEW MANAGER WALKS IN DOOR.
The AGENCIES involved in this INVESTIGATION ERROR if such questions NEVER considered, OR FIRST APPROACHED.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:47 am
The service should have also had to pay monetary damages! The reason the continually “push the envelope” is because they never have to pay serious consequences for their misdeeds.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
wahhhhh,..
April 28th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Iglehart III - we got everyone back to work - lost time, overtime, benefits - is it enough? NO.
Wish we could get the system to punish the managers responsible for this fiasco to the degree they deserve - Knox, Hayes, and especially Todd. Then, in fairness, discharge the District level managers including Gamble.
Stupid, cruel, and incompetent should be the charges.
Fourty-four grievances files, fourty four grievances won is the final score - congrats Willow Place!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Congrats to shop stewards standing up for employee rights!
Can you imagine the Post Office without the contract?
We are always the scapegoat for things going wrong but as usual when the facts come out…we are not the ones at fault.
June 15th, 2007 at 5:38 am
What do you expect , young gets NO RESPECT.
Pretty soon they will have carriers taking
their clothes off to be searched.
Young is a joke.
June 15th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The acting Postmaster in Montclair, CA., based only on a bogus phone call from a known gang-banger who has a criminal record, called the OIG who put a tracking device on the a letter carrier’s truck from February through April. Then they walked him out on emergency suspension with no pay claiming he twice scanned his first MSP scan BEFORE he left the office. When the NALC representative got the OIG report, it was discovered that the OIG’s tracking device was mis-calibrated by an hour!!! The union got him back with full pay plus overtime before Management issued the intended removal. Ignorant OIG Agents Anthony Tran and Adrian Valdez, who made numerous errors in their reporting, put him and his family through hell for no reason.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I have been telling them about a Postmaster in Elizabeth City North Carolina, that got lied about having her degrees from a recognized college to get into the 2004 USPS Management class. They have ignored my complaint and never investigated this person. I knew this person when she was a flexi and she has changed with her new feel for power. I thouhgt she would do the right thing since she lied on her application, which is an automatic dismissal, but the OIG has turned its’s head for the past 2 years.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:04 am
I’m going through this right now, has been going on for over a year. No help from mgmt, they deny it. No help from Union, steward’s in their pocket. No one believes me when I tell them they have me under surveillance 24/7 only to watch me go to work and Walmart. They have tried their best to get me using their “internal changes as necessary” BS..finding registereds in with raw mail, etc. Tired of the useless crap and I’d hate to know how much money has been spent on this. Any advice from those who have been through it, is appreciated.