serious concern because t (2024)

serious concern because they are in violation of both the letter and spirit of the National Agreement, and importantly they deprived the Grievant of his right to due process. In the absence of due process the grievance must be sustained without any consideration of its substantive merits. (C-01944) Page 16-2A(19) <strong>DEFENSES</strong> To <strong>DISCIPLINE</strong> Supporting Cases C-00584, Arbitrator Levak, October 26, 1982 C-01944, Arbitrator Holly, May 20, 1980 C-01983, Arbitrator Holly, August 6, 1981 C-03541, Arbitrator Hardin, May 11, 1983 C-03910, Arbitrator Fasser, June 18, 1977 C-04335, Arbitrator Hardin, June 7, 1984 C-04401, Arbitrator Williams, July 16, 1984 C-06907, Arbitrator Nolan, March 29, 1987 C-14470, Arbitrator McAllister, May 17, 1995 C-17750, Arbitrator Duda, November 13, 1997 Technical Defense No. 10 Management refused to disclose information to the Union (including claims that information was hidden.). Management must disclose to NALC all relevant information concerning the discipline. Case Example The testimony in the record clearly proves that the management representative at the Step 2-A hearing did not make [the postal inspector's investigative summary] available to the Step 2 Union representative, whether or not he asked for it. While the record is contradictory as to whether such material was requested by the Union's Step 2-A representative, management has the burden to prove that it had 'just cause' for the grievant's discharge, and concomitant with that 'burden of proof' was the requirement that it made available to the Step 2-A Union representative all of the pertinent material it had in its possession upon which it based its discharge decision. This it simply did not do. (C-00308) Supporting Cases C-00090, Arbitrator Willingham, December 11, 1972 C-00308, Arbitrator Dash, May 17, 1974 C-04273, Arbitrator Williams, May 2, 1984 C-06658, Arbitrator LeWinter, November 21, 1986

Page 16-2A(20) <strong>DEFENSES</strong> To <strong>DISCIPLINE</strong> SECTION TWO DISPUTES WHETHER GRIEVANT'S CONDUCT, IF PROVEN, WOULD CONSTITUTE A PROPER BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF <strong>DISCIPLINE</strong> All letter carrier behavior may conceptually be divided into two categories: 1) behavior for which no discipline may be imposed, and 2) misconduct for which discipline may be imposed. Examples of behavior for which discipline may not be imposed include finishing one's route on time every day, or taking lunch at an authorized location. Examples of misconduct for which discipline may ordinarily be imposed include stealing from the mail, or assaulting a supervisor. Sometimes management crosses the line between these categories and issues discipline for behavior which may not be properly characterized as misconduct, either because the behavior violates no rule, or because the rule which is violated is invalid. When this happens, the discipline should be disallowed. While this is a dramatic defense, it is inapplicable to most disciplinary actionsdecisions directly addressing this defense count for fewer than .01% of NALC's discipline arbitrations. Although the opportunities to employ this defense are infrequent, it is the only proper defense in certain recurring situations. For example, management sometimes disciplines employees simply for failure to meet the "18 and 8" standard. Such a charge does not form a valid basis for the imposition of discipline, because NALC and USPS have jointly agreed that failure to meet that standard, by itself, is not disciplinable misconduct. In such situations, the NALC representative handling the grievance must look behind the charge and ask "what is the rule implied by the charge" Where the charge is failure to meet standard, the rule implied is that failure to meet standard, by itself, is disciplinable misconduct. But such failure is not misconduct, and this defense, therefore, should be employed. In other kinds of cases, a valid rule will be found to be implied. For example, in a discharge for fighting the rule implied by the charge is that fighting is disciplinable misconduct, a valid rule. And because a valid rule was found, this defense could not appropriately be used. Case Examples [T]he Service has failed to charge the Grievant with a dischargeable offense. The reason given by the service for the removal of the Grievant is both void for vagueness and an obvious attempt to discharge the Grievant for being "accidentprone," a non-offense.