From A to Arbitration

Corey talks to shop stewards about the importance of the formal Step A meeting in the grievance process. They emphasize that this step is crucial because it's where cases are often won or lost. He encourages stewards to be thorough in their preparation, to know their arguments well, and to be ready to rebut management's position. They also discuss the importance of having the correct documentation and evidence to support their case. He highlights a few specific examples of how grievances have been handled at the formal Step A level and provides advice on how to handle these situations. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

Corey talks about the importance of the informal Step A meeting in the grievance process. He emphasizes the need for new shop stewards to understand what happens in these meetings and how to prepare themselves. He highlights that management often tries to intimidate stewards in these meetings, and it's important to remember that stewards have protected status. He provides guidance on what to include in a grievance file, the need for documentation and evidence, and how to build a strong case. He also encourages stewards to be assertive and not settle for a weak resolution. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode discusses how to approach grievances related to holiday scheduling. They emphasize the importance of building a strong case file with detailed information, including the holiday schedule, seniority rosters, employee earning statements, and any evidence of a past practice. It highlights the importance of understanding Article 11 of the national agreement and how it differs from Article 8 in the context of holiday scheduling. JB encourages listeners to file grievances if they believe their holiday pay has been denied or if management has not followed the proper scheduling procedure. They also discuss the importance of being organized, documenting everything, and not being afraid to challenge management. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

Corey talks about past practice grievances and how they are often successful in arbitration. He discusses the importance of understanding the concept of past practice and the three elements required to establish a valid past practice: clarity and consistency, longevity and repetition, and acceptability. He also emphasizes the need for good-faith bargaining when management seeks to change a past practice. Corey highlights specific arbitration cases and provides guidance on how to build a case file and navigate these types of grievances. Bahakel C-30984 August C-34447 Talmadge C-34614 Talmadge C-20253 (denied) http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode discusses the concept of "dispatch of value, window of operation" and explains how management uses it to justify violating Article 8 of the national agreement. Corey provides several arbitration decisions, and encourages shop stewards to use this knowledge in their grievance process. He also stresses the importance of having proper staffing levels and how management often fails to do so, which leads to the violation of Article 8. M-01548 The White Pages http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

Corey discusses the concept of dispatch of value, window of operation and how management uses it to justify violating Article 8 of the national agreement. He highlights the importance of understanding this concept and how it can be used to fight management's actions. He analyzes various arbitration decisions to illustrate how arbitrators have ruled on this issue and provide guidance for shop stewards on how to build a case. Corey also discusses the importance of evidence and documentation when fighting against management's actions and how to prepare for an arbitration hearing. Britton C-13181 Dilts C-26675 (don't use as cite. Remedy is crap) Roberts C-31146 August C-32315 Article 8.5.a, 8.5.d, 8.5.f, 8.5.g http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on escalated monetary awards in arbitration cases related to the noncompliance with cease-and-desist orders by management. Corey emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation, including all past decisions, settlements, and relevant documents like M1517 (the Donahoe letter). He encourages listeners to study specific arbitration cases from Lake Charles, highlighting the successful arguments and remedies achieved in those instances, specifically referencing cases 31146, 31269, 31620, 33023 A and B, and 32792. He also provides guidance on formulating strong issue statements and remedies, advocating for the inclusion of Article 15 violations and providing a template for building a compelling case. He concludes by stressing the importance of learning from arbitrators' decisions and understanding their reasoning in awarding escalated monetary awards. M-01517 M-01967 federal court decision Roberts C-34197 Kingsport Mittenthal C-6238 Gamser C-3200 Lake Charles decisions Roberts C-31146, 31269, 33023 A-B Wolitz C-31620, 32792 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on understanding and utilizing escalated monetary awards in grievance arbitrations. Corey emphasizes the importance of documenting past cease and desist orders issued to management as evidence of repeated contract violations. He argues that while the goal is not to financially burden the Postal Service, these awards are sometimes necessary to ensure contract compliance when other avenues, like informal resolutions and prior arbitration decisions, have failed to stop the violations. Corey cites several arbitration decisions, emphasizing Arbitrator Roberts' decision which supports the argument that repeated disregard for cease and desist orders justifies escalating monetary remedies. He concludes by advising listeners on how to effectively build their cases, including providing specific examples of successful arguments and appropriate monetary amounts to request. Roberts C-34731 Maier C-31812 August C-32315 Wolitz C-31620 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

JB joins to discuss the complex issue of "Deems Desirable," a policy allowing supervisors to request medical documentation for absences of three days or less. Leath emphasizes the importance of stewards understanding contractual provisions and building strong cases by gathering evidence like employee attendance records and ERMS reports. He criticizes the arbitrary use of "Deems Desirable" as a blanket policy, advocating for case-by-case application and prior notification of attendance concerns. Drawing upon his own arbitration experience, Leath highlights a successful case where management failed to demonstrate reasonable justification for placing an employee on "Deems Desirable" without prior notice or documented attendance issues. He encourages stewards to familiarize themselves with relevant USPS manuals and proactively gather information to support their arguments when challenging this policy. M-01597 M-00002 ELM 511.42 ELM 513.361 JCAM 10-14 eRMS report 260F0 eRms report 515F0 3972 eRMS leave usage/call in log eRMS key indicator report August C-35201 August C-33650 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

Corey discusses the complexities of "last chance agreements" (LCAs), legal documents that offer employees a final opportunity to maintain employment after serious disciplinary offenses. Corey uses a recent arbitration case involving an employee dismissed for a single, brief tardiness despite 111 days of on-time attendance to illustrate the challenges advocates face when defending employees bound by LCAs. He emphasizes the importance of just cause principles, even in LCA situations, and criticizes management's handling of the case, particularly their failure to provide timely information and alleged witness intimidation. Corey concludes by encouraging other union advocates to rigorously defend employees facing discipline under LCAs. Rentfro C-01760 inequitable discipline Rentfro C- 01030 procedural due process Cohen C-00239 perfection August C-34816 Information Kleine C-10846 LCA August C-35237 LCA Axon C-11112 LCA timeliness Olson C-16970 LCA timeliness Roberts C-16475 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This podcast episode focuses on the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace, and the importance of knowing the right arguments and remedies to utilize in grievance cases related to this statement. Corey is discussing with his listeners how to build a strong case file and be prepared when dealing with management who might be violating the Joint Statement. He emphasizes that management often tries to avoid responsibility, making the same arguments, regardless of the specific case. Corey advises stewards to gather specific information, including previous arbitration decisions related to the Joint Statement, such as those from Arbitrator Bjork and Arbitrator Britain, to support their arguments. He also emphasizes the need for stewards to be assertive and to not back down when faced with management's attempts to downplay the seriousness of the situation. Overall, Corey aims to empower his listeners with the knowledge and confidence needed to effectively advocate for their members in grievance cases, ensuring that workers are treated with respect and dignity in the workplace. J. Jacobs C-33993 Rule of Evidence #406 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This podcast episode focuses on the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace. Corey is explaining to shop stewards how to build a strong case file for grievances related to this statement, specifically in instances where management exhibits bullying or harassing behavior. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the Joint Statement and utilizing relevant arbitration decisions to support arguments. Corey highlights a case from Arbitrator Bjork, which establishes that the Joint Statement is a legally binding agreement, and that management's failure to comply constitutes a violation. Corey encourages stewards to take an assertive approach and to be thorough in documenting everything. He provides guidance on finding relevant information, including previous arbitration decisions, workplace climate surveys, and threat assessments. Ultimately, Corey emphasizes the need for stewards to be proactive and prepared, building a strong foundation for their case from the start. He encourages them to be thorough in their research and to seek help if needed. He also advises that stewards should not be afraid to stand up to bullying management and that they should always strive to build a strong case that protects their members. August Hattiesburg C-33831 August Clinton C- 35122 August Relevancy letter decision C-35441 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This podcast episode focuses on the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace, a crucial document for stewards handling grievance cases involving harassment, intimidation, or bullying by management. Corey emphasizes the importance of understanding the Joint Statement, noting that management often tries to avoid its implications. He recommends that stewards gather specific information, including previous arbitration decisions related to the Joint Statement, such as those from Arbitrators Snow and Britain. He encourages stewards to be proactive and assertive, using the Joint Statement as a tool to hold management accountable for their behavior. He stresses the importance of building a strong case file and utilizing the information to highlight management's patterns of misconduct. The episode serves as a pep rally for stewards, urging them to be prepared and knowledgeable to effectively represent their members and fight against inappropriate behavior by management. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/ JSOV m-1242 JSOV II m-1243 Arbitrator Snow C-15697 Both parties post hearing briefs for Snow decision Article 15 language ELM 665.24 Section 115.4 M-39 Handbook Article 14 District workplace violence/zero tolerance policy Postal service policy on workplace harrasment Arbitrator Bajork C-20643 6th Circuit appeals decision m-1488 District court decision (in transcript section) 4th circuit appeals m-1518 all grievance settlements informal a formal a b-team arbitration any surveys workplace climate surveys threat assesments joint intervention any discipline or adverse action against the manager/supervisor statements Arbitrator August decisions C-33831 C-35122 Arbitrator Maier C-32076

This podcast episode is a follow-up to a previous episode on opting, a process within a union contract that allows eligible employees to take on a vacant assignment. Corey expresses his gratitude to Jason Leeth for creating a comprehensive episode on opting. Corey acknowledges the complexity of the subject, explaining how it affects various aspects of a worker's life, including their livelihood and personal well-being. He also emphasizes the importance of a joint statement, a document that outlines the union's position in a grievance case, and highlights how management often tries to avoid committing to it. The core message of the episode is that stewards must be prepared and proactive when handling grievances related to opting. They should understand the contract provisions, document all requests for information, and be assertive in challenging management's attempts to manipulate the process. Corey shares an example of a successful arbitration case where a manager's bullying tactics were exposed, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the union. He emphasizes the need for unions to be persistent in advocating for their members' rights. The episode concludes with a reminder that the union is there to support its members and that stewards should be prepared to take a firm stand against any attempts by management to violate the contract. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on the topic of opting in a union contract, specifically on how to navigate the process and avoid common pitfalls. Corey and Jason discuss the intricacies of opting, a process that allows eligible employees to take on a vacant assignment. Eligibility for Opting: Only full-time reserve letter carriers, full-time flexible letter carriers, unassigned regular letter carriers, and city carrier assistants (CCAs) are eligible to opt. Probationary employees and light duty employees cannot opt. The "Hold-Down" Concept: When an individual opts on an assignment, they effectively become the carrier for the duration of the vacancy, even if the original carrier returns early. The Role of Seniority: Seniority plays a crucial role in determining who gets an opt, with full-time employees taking priority over part-time employees and CCAs. The Importance of Documentation: JB stresses the need for stewards to document all opting requests and to ensure that management follows proper procedures. The Concept of "Last Resort": JB highlights that bumping an employee from a hold-down assignment should be a last resort, as it can be a violation of the contract. Key Documents for Opting: JB recommends that stewards familiarize themselves with the JCAM, the Local Memorandum of Understanding (LMOU), and the Vacation Calendar. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on the importance of the informal step A meeting in grievance cases. Corey argues that this initial meeting is crucial, as it's often the first time management reveals their position in writing. He emphasizes the need for shop stewards to be prepared and aggressive in this meeting, encouraging stewards to develop detailed contentions, document everything, and ask for all relevant information. He also stresses the importance of having a core group of trusted colleagues to review information and provide support. Corey provides an example of a recent arbitration case where he successfully challenged management's failure to provide requested information during the informal step A meeting. He highlights how management's lack of preparation and their tendency to change their position at the formal step A meeting demonstrates the importance of being prepared and thorough at the informal level. Corey encourages listeners to embrace the informal step A meeting as an opportunity to be "devastating" in their defense of grievances. By being prepared, assertive, and meticulous in documenting everything, stewards can effectively lay the groundwork for a successful outcome in the grievance process. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on Article 31 of the National Agreement, which governs information requests during grievance cases. Corey explains that this article is closely linked to Article 17, which deals with the right of stewards to access information for grievance processing. Corey emphasizes that when a shop steward encounters a situation where management fails to provide requested information, they should always include a violation of Article 31 and Article 17 in their issue statement. Corey further explains that management is obligated to provide "all relevant information" necessary for the union to process grievances. This includes information outside of the bargaining unit, and the union has the right to determine what information is relevant. Corey then provides an example of a relevancy letter, a document used by management to challenge the union's request for information. He reiterates that the union has the right to determine what information is relevant and that management cannot dictate what information is needed. He also provides a successful case from Arbitrator Mittenthal C-10363, which supports the union's right to information. Finally, he encourages listeners to document all information requests and to be persistent in obtaining the information they need, emphasizing that a violation of Articles 17 and 31 can be a powerful argument in a grievance case. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode discusses the importance of information requests in grievance cases. Corey argues that failure to provide requested information constitutes a serious violation of the collective bargaining agreement, potentially leading to the dismissal of the grievance. Corey emphasizes that stewards have a right to investigate, adjust, and process grievances, including reviewing relevant documents, files, and records, as well as interviewing employees, supervisors, and witnesses. They also have the right to request time on the clock to conduct these activities. Corey encourages listeners to be assertive and request all necessary information, even if it requires going to higher levels of management or even the Office of Inspector General (OIG). He provides examples of relevant documents and the importance of maintaining copies of information requests. He also highlights instances where management has denied information requests and the consequences that followed. Corey ultimately concludes that failure to provide information is a major due process violation and that stewards should be prepared to fight for their right to access it. He encourages listeners to document all requests and to be persistent in their pursuit of the information they need. Mittenthal C-10363 August C-33968 August C-34816 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on the principle of "corrective rather than punitive" discipline. Corey argues that while arbitrators often interpret "corrective discipline" as synonymous with "progressive discipline," true corrective action requires management to actively help employees improve their performance rather than simply issuing escalating punishments. Corey emphasizes management's obligation to manage, using examples like an employee disciplined for incorrectly filling out a form without being given proper instruction and another punished for unauthorized overtime without management investigating the root cause. He advocates for union stewards to hold management accountable to the higher standard of corrective discipline and provides specific contractual provisions and arbitration precedent to support this argument. Cohen C-00557 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode is about defending City Carrier Assistants (CCAs) facing disciplinary action by the United States Postal Service. Corey emphasizes that CCAs are particularly vulnerable to discipline because they lack the protections of tenure and a "bank of goodwill." He highlights the principle of "corrective rather than punitive" discipline that applies to CCAs, emphasizing that management is obligated to attempt to correct an employee's behavior before resorting to punishment. He cites several arbitration cases, emphasizing specific contractual language and arbitrator's decisions that support this principle, and encourages listeners to build strong cases by meticulously documenting violations of the principle of corrective discipline. Cohen C-00557 Jacobs C-34761 Jacobs C-34218 Jacobs C-33500 http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

Corey enthusiastically details a federal court decision (M-01967) that upholds the right of the union to seek escalated monetary awards, also referred to as punitive awards, from the USPS in cases of contract violations. The decision stems from an arbitration case in Kingsport, Tennessee, where the arbitrator awarded a substantial sum to the union due to the Postal Service's repeated contractual breaches. Corey emphasizes the importance of this decision, urging listeners to include both the M-01967 document and the Kingsport case (C-04197) in all future grievances involving escalated monetary awards. He views this legal victory as a powerful tool for the union in ensuring future contract compliance from the USPS. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This podcast episode focuses on the fifth of six "just cause" principles in labor arbitration: "Was the disciplinary action taken in a timely manner?" Corey explains that management cannot delay disciplinary action indefinitely and that the discipline must be issued promptly after the offense occurs. He gives several examples of cases where arbitrators ruled that management violated this principle by delaying discipline, and explains how shop stewards can use these cases to defend their members. He encourages shop stewards to be mindful of the timing of disciplinary actions and to challenge any delays as a violation of the just cause principle. Corey emphasizes the importance of this principle as a crucial protection for employees and highlights how it can be used to win grievances. He also encourages listeners to use his provided examples to strengthen their cases and to be proactive in their work as shop stewards. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode continues the discussion of "just cause" principles in labor arbitration. Corey is focusing on the third of six sub-questions related to just cause: "Was a thorough investigation completed?" He explains that this principle is crucial because it protects employees from disciplinary actions based on insufficient investigations. He emphasizes that the investigation needs to be thorough and objective, and that any accusation made should be substantiated by evidence. He also highlights the need for the union to challenge management when they fail to conduct a thorough investigation, particularly when the supervisor or a higher-level manager fails to follow proper procedures. Corey provides several examples of how management has failed to conduct thorough investigations and how these failures can be used to win grievances. He stresses the importance of the shop steward's role in advocating for their brothers and sisters, especially in situations where management is not being fair or transparent. Corey concludes by urging shop stewards to be vigilant and to use their knowledge of just cause principles to defend their union members. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode focuses on the fourth of six "just cause" principles in labor arbitration, emphasizing that a complete investigation encompasses more than just the investigative interview; it includes all steps leading to the disciplinary action. Several examples are given of inadequate investigations, highlighting instances where management failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, added questions and answers after the fact, or cited disciplinary reasons not previously discussed. Corey stresses the employee's right to a fair opportunity to defend themselves against specific charges, emphasizing the need for shop stewards to carefully scrutinize investigative interviews and challenge shortcomings. A particularly explicit example of an inadequate investigation, involving a carrier's use of profanity towards supervisors, is used to illustrate the point. The episode also addresses due process violations, such as the concurring official's presence during the investigative interview, and the importance of raising procedural due process issues during the grievance process. Corey concludes by urging shop stewards to be vigilant in protecting employee rights and ensuring thorough investigations are conducted. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode is about the third of six "just cause" principles in labor arbitration. Corey focuses on the principle of "Is the rule consistently and equitably enforced?" He explains that management often tries to enforce rules inconsistently, and that this inconsistency can be used to challenge their actions. He also encourages listeners to be aware of the "rubber-stamping" of discipline that can happen when a supervisor doesn't actually review a case before approving it. Corey emphasizes that the union needs to hold management accountable for their actions by pointing out these inconsistencies. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

The second of the “just cause” principles, Corey argues that this often-overlooked aspect is crucial when challenging management actions. They emphasize the importance of demonstrating that a rule is not only present but also reasonable in relation to safe and efficient work performance and business efficiency. Corey provides examples of unreasonable rules, such as a requirement to raise one's hand to use the restroom, highlighting how the reasonableness of the rule is the crucial point of contention, rather than simply failing to follow an instruction. The discussion stresses that a supervisor must consider the reasonableness of a rule before initiating disciplinary action, and that a rule's violation is only justifiable if the rule itself is reasonable. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

Corey emphasizes the importance of starting any grievance process with the "just cause" principles, especially focusing on whether a rule exists that the carrier violated. He emphasizes that management frequently cites rules that don't exist or don't apply to the situation. Corey encourages listeners to research any rules cited by management to determine if they are legitimate and to use this information to their advantage during grievance procedures. He uses several examples to illustrate these concepts and also encourages listeners to be proactive and thorough in their work as shop stewards. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This podcast episode is about Article 16.1 of the National Agreement which deals with the "just cause" principle for disciplinary actions. Corey explains that the "just cause" principle requires management to have a fair and provable justification for any disciplinary action. He highlights that Article 16.1 specifies that discipline should be corrective rather than punitive. Corey emphasizes the importance of using the "corrective rather than punitive" language in grievances and encourages listeners to be proactive in challenging management's actions. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

This episode discusses the importance of effectively defending union members facing disciplinary actions. Corey emphasizes the need for shop stewards to act as strong advocates, going beyond basic representation and utilizing all available resources, including specific contract provisions, to build a robust defense. He argues that union representatives should not be "public defenders," content with minimal effort, but rather should meticulously investigate and leverage every aspect of the contract, particularly Article 16, to contest management's claims. Corey highlights the critical section on "Examples of Behavior" within Article 16, emphasizing that these examples are illustrative and do not automatically justify discipline. He provides a case study to illustrate how management failed to prove crucial aspects of a case, specifically regarding a carrier's alleged phone use during an accident. He stresses the need for union representatives to demand evidence and scrutinize management's claims, proving that the behavior was intentional, that the discipline was corrective rather than punitive, and that the action was justified by sufficient evidence. The message is that union members deserve strong advocacy, and shop stewards should not neglect the full scope of available tools to protect them from unwarranted discipline. http://www.fromatoarbitration.com/

C-32824 This episode focuses on Article 16.10 of the National Agreement, which deals with employee disciplinary records and how this article can nullify discipline. Corey explains that management cannot cite disciplinary actions that are older than 2 years against an employee. He argues that management often uses this tactic and shop stewards should be aware of this. Corey also highlights the importance of checking the "request for appropriate action" form to see if management has included any prior discipline in the case file. If they have, and it is over 2 years old, the shop steward should challenge it. “A notice of discipline, which is subsequently fully rescinded, whether by settlement, arbitration award, or independent management action, shall be deemed not to have been initiated for purposes of Article 16, Section 10, and may not be cited or considered in any subsequent disciplinary action.” C-32824 “The service has a history of emphasizing that accidents themselves are not the appropriate basis for discipline without establishing an employee's action. violated a Postal Service Safety Rule of Regulation. As noted in the April 7, 1980 memo by the Senior Assistant Postmaster General Carl Olsacher who wrote in pertinent part, accidents or compensation claims, even when in a manager's view excessive, are not in themselves an appropriate basis for discipline. What must be cited in any such disciplinary action are the actions of an employee which are violations of a postal service safety rule or regulation.” Elkori Elkori how arbitration works - Pg 640 Defenses to Discipline: Pg 26 C-01944 “The employer's case is further followed by the fact that it is violative of that portion of Article 16 of the National Agreement, which provides such discussions may not be cited as an element of a prior adverse record in any subsequent disciplinary action against an employee. The Notice of Removal cites two such discussions as elements of the agreement's past record. These procedural defects cannot be overlooked as being insignificant. They are of serious concern because they are in violation of both the letter and spirit of the national agreement, and importantly, they deprive the agreement of its right to due process. In the absence of due process, the agreements must be sustained without any consideration of its standard merits.”

This episode focuses on Article 16.8, which deals with review of discipline. Corey explains the importance of this article and how it can be used to challenge management decisions. He points out that any disciplinary action, such as a suspension or discharge, must be reviewed and concurred by a manager who is a higher level than the supervisor who initiated the discipline. This review should be independent, not a rubber stamp. He also suggests that if an arbitrator says that a disciplinary action is not a "de minimus" violation, then it is a fatal flaw and management's case may be thrown out.

This episode is about labor arbitration and how to use the M39 handbook, which is the management handbook used by the US Postal Service. Corey explains that section 115 of the M39 handbook deals with discipline and how management should administer it. He emphasizes that management should always make every effort to correct a situation before resorting to disciplinary measures. He also says that management has a responsibility to resolve problems before they become grievances. Corey urges listeners to use this section in their grievance procedures by holding management accountable for their responsibilities as outlined in the M39 handbook.

This episode covers how to challenge management when they use criminal statutes against a carrier in disciplinary actions. Corey advises listeners to research any criminal statutes cited by management, as those statutes may not apply to the specific situation. He explains that in a formal grievance procedure, a carrier's lawyer should argue for a higher standard of proof, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because management is essentially making a criminal accusation.

Corey explains Article 16.6 of the National Agreement, which deals with indefinite suspensions in crime situations. He explains that management can't automatically put someone on indefinite suspension without giving them some notice. He also emphasizes the importance of a "nexus" or connection between the employee's job and the crime for which they were arrested. He concludes by saying that carriers who are in trouble should reach out to their union or their attorney for help. Non-specific references in this episode: Corey references an arbitration where a carrier picked up a package for a customer that contained marijuana. The Postal Inspectors jumped him when he picked it up, and management put him on 16:7 emergency placement rather than 16.6 indefinite suspension crime situation. They did that because the quantum of proof in a 16.7 is much less than a 16.6.

Corey talks about Article 16.7: Emergency Placement. He emphasizes the importance of challenging emergency placements by filing grievances, highlighting four key areas of contention: immediacy (the action must be taken without delay), notification (the employee must be explicitly informed of the emergency placement), a detailed written charge, and the length of the placement (which cannot be indefinite). He supports his arguments with relevant arbitration cases and decisions, urging listeners to utilize this information to better defend themselves and their colleagues against potentially unjust actions by management. C-10146 A&B: Defines what “immediate” is in cases of emergency placement. C-24822: Determines the precedence and justification for emergency situations in a case where a carrier was put on emergency placement for not wearing a seatbelt - a situation that was not imminently dangerous. C-30322: Shows that management failed to specify the reason for emergency placement in the charge. C-32656: Highlights several instances where extended emergency placements were deemed improper.

Jason Atchley returns to discuss unauthorized overtime and discipline arising from it. He discusses what a carrier should do when faced with a workload over 8 hours, and highlights the importance of filling out a 3996, as well as leaving decision-making in management's hands. He mentions that management should be filling out PS Form 1017, “Unauthorized Overtime Report” when overtime is not approved. M-00464: Local management can properly request letter carrier employees to estimate their workload to the best of their ability. When the employees request overtime or auxiliary assistance, the information obtained by the carrier estimation is not intended to be used to discipline carriers or to settle work standards. They highlight specific M-39 provisions, including 134.2, which prohibits management from using covert surveillance tactics, and M-00464, which states that projections cannot be used as the sole basis for discipline. Non-specific references in this episode: Arbitrator Wolowitz: “We must conclude that management failed to give Mr. Alexander clear instructions as to what to do when he could not complete his assigned delivery within eight hours. Since he thought those were his instructions, he brought the mail back, he did the best to follow his instructions as he understood them.” The removal was rescinded and expunged. (LOOK UP 0326, 1444, 1664, 1769)

Corey welcomes Jason Atchley to this episode. They discuss unauthorized overtime and how to defend against discipline related to it. Jason explains that there are two competing theories on discipline: single-track (where any violation can lead to immediate discipline) and multi-track (where discipline is progressive). The podcast focuses on the multi-track theory, which is based on the language of Article 16 of the JCAM, and emphasizes that discipline should be corrective, not punitive. The podcast encourages shop stewards to be proactive in challenging unfair disciplinary actions, check their past record for previous discussions or discipline, and to ensure their members understand their rights and protections. Non-specific references in this episode: Arbitrator Glenda August: A letter carrier involved in an accident, management put him on 16:7 and removed him. The carrier had prior attendance discipline, and a prior accident, and in this situation did not immediately report the accident. The arbitrator makes the differentiation that even though the carrier was involved in a prior accident, the discipline was for him failing to report the accident. She also states the grievant's prior disciplinary history was not all related to safety infractions and the mistakes made in the accident at issue were not so egregious as to rise to the level of removal.

***GET C-01928*** Corey discusses how to defend carriers in charges related to the disease of alcohol and/or drug addiction. He emphasizes that the union should advocate for a corrective, rather than a punitive, approach when dealing with carriers facing discipline due to alcohol or drug abuse, as outlined in Article 35 of the collective bargaining agreement. He advises shop stewards to encourage the carrier to seek help through the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) first and foremost. Corey also stresses the importance of challenging management when they use covert surveillance of carriers on the street (M-39 134.2) and when they fail to follow the JCAM's requirement to promptly notify the branch president after an accident (41.3P). He warns that management often uses these tactics to unfairly discipline carriers and that shop stewards must be vigilant in defending their rights. C-01928: “What then, are the factors which would allow an arbitrator to mitigate the offense committed by the alcoholic which led to his removal from the postal service to order that he be reinstated by the postal service?” C-33598 A&B: “As I've stated many times, there are certain deeds that certainly deserve removal action even on the first occurrence. Acts such as theft or involving physical violence provide only a few examples. And based on the language of the parties agreement, I'm of the considered opinion that not every case involving drug or alcohol abuse necessarily fit in the same category. C-02371: “A careful review of the evidence convinces this arbitrator that the grievant's alcoholism was primarily responsible for the misconduct giving rise to his discharge. That the grievant is an alcoholic and has been one for sometime is undisputed. [...] The arbitrator is convinced in this case that but for grievant's drinking problem, he would not have committed the very foolish and serious acts involved. The evidence indicates that he now fully appreciates the problem and, through great personal effort, has complied with the requirements of the rehabilitation program and maintained sobriety for a long period of time. The record in this case, including grievant's straightforward testimony, indicates that the prognosis for the future is good. These factors along with grievant's twenty years of service persuade this arbitrator that discharge was too severe in this case. This does not mean that limits to which any employer can be expected to go help an alcoholic employee overcome his problem. The time does come when an employer may reasonably conclude that its efforts to encourage rehabilitation have failed and that prospects for substandard improvement are so slim that the employment relationship must be terminated.” EAP provides free confidential counseling to all postal employees and their family members by trained outside professionals. It has confidentiality with a strict code of ethics and is easily accessible by calling 1-800-EAP-4YOU (1-800-327-4968) or visit https://usps.ndbh.com/EAP for more information. Non-specific references in this episode: Corey references an arbitration defending a gentleman struggling with methamphetamine addiction, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of the carrier, emphasizing that the carrier had already sought help and was making progress. Corey references an arbitration where a carrier was passed out at his station, and police and EMT were involved. The carrier asked for help and wrote a statement stating such, and management mocked the carrier in their opening statement. The arbitrator made a bench decision without getting to the merits of the case - she brought him back. Corey references a decision from Linda de Leon Kelin, where a carrier left his route, bought alcohol, and became drunk. The grievant was given a final chance to salvage his employment.

Corey discusses backing, stationary events, and street observations, focusing on how to use specific provisions in the M-39 handbook to challenge management actions. This episode speaks on the importance that carriers ask for union representation when management questions them about stationary and backing events, and educating carriers on how to respond to questions about occurrences on street time. He also stresses the importance of M-39 134: Street Management, section 2, which prohibits management from spying or using covert techniques to observe carriers during street management. This, coupled with M-1458 stating MSP data may not constitute the sole basis for disciplinary action, is the main defense utilized in stationary event discipline. Management must observe time-wasting practices or improper procedure and must make themselves known to the carrier. The only individuals who can conduct covert surveillance of carriers are those within the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Corey also asserts that stewards should ask for PS Form 4584 during discipline for street events, which may further prove a violation of the M-39. Arbitrator L. Wolitz C-32778: “We agree with the union that [...] M-39 134.22 (Spying/covert techniques) is directly related to working conditions.” “Furthermore, we find that the information gathered as a result of the observation of letter carrier Martin Smith is fruit of a poison tree and therefore must be deleted from all records of the postal service and carrier Smith.” References In This Episode: Corey references a carrier in his station where management called and accused him of backing, but the location in question was a turnaround driveway.

This episode discusses the importance of using tenure as an argument against discipline. He encourages listeners to use the "bank of goodwill," which refers to years of good service, in their arguments. Arbitrators often hesitate to discipline long-term carriers due to their tenure. He suggests including seniority dates on the PS Form 8190 to inform the advocate of the carrier's tenure. He urges listeners to use the "bank of goodwill" as a strong argument in any discipline case. In This Episode: An arbitration for a carrier with a letter of warning for attendance, in which the arbitrator said management failed to recognize the grievant's 33 years of service. Bank of Good Will: Page 44 of Defenses to Discipline Case number 3587: Grievant served the employer for over 8 years without discipline. C5138 A&B: Carrier followed and harassed by a manager, the carrier assaulted the manager, but her 14-year exemplary work record coupled with the circumstances of the incident led the arbitrator to reduce her removal to a reinstatement without loss of seniority or benefits, and back pay less a 30-day disciplinary suspension. Elkouri and Elkouri - How Arbitration Works, pp 641: Length of Service with a Company; “Long service with a company particularly if unblemished, is a definite factor in the employee's favor when his discharge is reviewed through arbitration. Arbitrators have recognized that the loss of seniority may work great hardship on the employee and that it is not conducive to the improvement of relations between other workers and management.

**PAGE 16-3 pg 254 JCAM examples of behavior** Corey continues his discussion on how to defend carriers against discipline after an accident, this time focusing on the concept of "corrective rather than punitive" discipline, as outlined in Article 16 of the JCAM. He again advises stewards if the branch president was not notified, it's a violation of due process. He also encourages shop stewards to challenge any claims that the accident was serious in nature, as the 1769 form requires a determination of seriousness. Corey also affirms that management has the burden of proof, and that they must prove an act was intentional. He mentions an accident is not sufficient to warrant automatic suspension or revocation of driving privileges, or automatic application of discipline (Article 29). In This Episode: A carrier gave their phone to management - don't do that.

Corey continues to discuss how to defend carriers against discipline related to accidents. He emphasizes the importance of Article 41.3P of the JCAM, which requires management to promptly notify the branch president after a vehicle accident. Failure to do so violates due process and provides a strong argument for the carrier. He highlights two boxes on PS Form 1769, “Serious Accident” and “Preventative Action”, as they can be used as defenses to discipline if management filled them out improperly. He encourages shop stewards to be vigilant in advocating for their carriers in accident-related grievances, and to question management's “thorough investigation.” In This Episode: A carrier knocking a basketball goal over and breaking a mirror, and management's dramatization in their report. A carrier with a roll-away run-away who did not report it. Removal was revoked in arbitration due to the way management wrote up the PS Form 1769 ***GET THE PS FORM*** & C-30421

This episode is the first in a series of episodes focusing on accidents and how to defend carriers against management actions after an accident. Corey highlights the importance of union representation at the scene of an accident, noting that management often tries to gather information and build a case against the carrier without giving them the opportunity to be present or to have representation. He emphasizes the importance of Article 41.3P, which requires management to promptly notify the branch president after a vehicle accident, and argues that failure to do so is a violation of due process.

Corey continues discussing attendance-related discipline, specifically focusing on the concept of "deemed desirable and restricted sick leave." He explains that management uses this to discipline carriers, but it's often a weak argument. He points out that the ELM provision 513.361 states that a carrier is only required to provide documentation for their absences if they are on restricted sick leave or if management deems it necessary for the protection of the Postal Service. He advises shop stewards to challenge these claims, especially when a carrier was not notified of being placed on "deemed desirable." Corey highlights the importance of understanding national arbitration decisions related to discipline, namely the Vera d Bugg case, a landmark case in attendance arbitration, and suggests using it as a strong argument against management's claims, as it utilizes a percentage of attendance vs absences. He encourages shop stewards to ensure that carriers are aware of their rights and to be proactive in challenging inaccurate or unfair disciplinary actions.

Corey discusses a specific type of attendance-related discipline, "deems desirable and restricted sick leave." He points out that management often tries to circumvent the process by simply stating that the carrier was given a discussion about their absences, even if this isn't accurate. He highlights the importance of challenging these claims by the shop steward, suggesting the use of the ELM (Employee and Labor Relations Manual) provision 513.361 to support their arguments. He encourages shop stewards to educate carriers about these regulations and to challenge any instances where a formal discussion wasn't given. Corey also encourages shop stewards to look for discrepancies between attendance records and the reasons for discipline. He emphasizes that the charge must be accurate and that the carrier must be given an opportunity to defend themselves against it, and reminds listeners that discipline must be corrective in nature.

Corey talks about the importance of attendance-related discipline in the grievance process. He points out the low success rate of the union as well as the difficulty of these cases, suggesting they are often won or modified in arbitration. He encourages shop stewards to challenge the validity of any "official discussion" claimed by management, as a formal discussion is required for minor offenses, and to ensure the carrier is fully aware of their attendance record and attendance reviews (or lack thereof). It is important to consult with the carrier before an investigative interview, and Corey mentions how to handle management and acknowledging management responsibilities. He also emphasizes the need to be assertive and fight for the carrier, understanding that they might be going through a difficult personal situation.

This episode focuses on the charge and discipline process in labor grievances. Corey emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing the charge itself, ensuring it is accurate and supported by the documentation provided by management. He advises shop stewards to examine the charge thoroughly, ensuring that every detail is correct and that the investigative interview covered all aspects of the charge, and any inaccurate information can be used to weaken management's stance. The episode also discusses the "official discussion" requirement in Article 16.2 of the JCAM, reminding listeners that management is required to have a formal, private discussion with the employee before issuing discipline for minor offenses. There is also mention of Article 16.3 and the letter of warning, and that Article 16.7 talks about due process and the procedure that must be followed to issue discipline. Corey advises shop stewards to challenge any claims by management that an official discussion took place when it did not. C-31277: Arbitrator Louise Wolitz “What is in that notice must be true and correct if the removal is to be for just cause.”

Corey explains the importance of understanding the "official discussion" requirement in Article 16.2 of the Joint Contract Administration Manual (JCAM). He explains that management is required to have a formal, private discussion with an employee before issuing discipline for a minor offense. He highlights how management often misrepresents these discussions, claiming they occurred when they actually did not. Corey encourages shop stewards to challenge these claims, as they can be used to weaken management's side of a grievance. He emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing dates and details within disciplinary notices.

Corey explains what to do when a carrier receives discipline from management. The most important initial step is to have the carrier sign the disciplinary notice, as management has been known to use a carrier's refusal to sign as a reason for discipline. He then dives into the importance of requesting information during the informal Step A stage, stressing that the shop steward should request everything management used to issue the discipline, rather than waiting until later. This allows the steward to gather the necessary information and prepare a strong grievance. (Note from editor: When requesting any and all information used to issue discipline, you should only include information that helps your case OR information when management changes their stance. You don't need to help management's case in Formal A/Step B/Arbitration!). Corey emphasizes that the shop steward should not rush to file a grievance immediately but should utilize the 14-day window to gather evidence and build a solid case. He emphasizes the importance of thorough research and understanding the nuances of the discipline process.

Corey discusses the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Postal Inspectors, highlighting their tendency towards dishonesty. He shares his experience with their investigations and argues that they often act on behalf of management with the aim of finding carriers guilty. He emphasizes that even though postal inspectors may seem intimidating, they are still bound by the contract and should be held accountable. He encourages shop stewards to be proactive and take detailed notes during any interactions with the OIG or postal inspectors, as these agencies are known for misrepresenting information. Corey suggests requesting the handwritten notes of the inspectors to ensure accuracy and to potentially raise an Article 17-31 grievance if needed. He reminds listeners that the carrier's day in court is crucial and that they must be truthful and protected by the shop steward. He emphasizes that the shop steward needs to stand firm against intimidation tactics and advocate for the carrier's rights.