Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O5—cv—OOO47-GlVl§mm_Qho£;_p_ment 43-11 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 1 of 4
_ J ·``’1 5
sec . . 1 ap
.ee.iiL¤ S?",e*i°,g‘E5; 1\4 _, soorejeesarorsrercr __ J_$9$’$ %·
__,,— Seittfife erseera easotwmrr rama i
» .~:.:1`*f¤i?.%{Z$°??f:’:‘».·~».c_ _ i
W , 1 M $3
E TEAM Dibomenico ‘·§_ O, if
& Giive oectstomz Resotiiee §_ Y&L,ni‘
ESTRIQT spare Jamey eseset core-4c-o osor,9494 f $*4*4,
Branch Grievance #: 5—13—o4 rv ·°?`»`§`§,
Branch: 191 4, :§:;c2
r Installation: Wilmington: BE 1 gi?
Belivery Unit: Lancaster 7 ESQ; ·
Zip Code: 19SQE *'Ҥ R
Finance Number: @9-632d
Bate Step A Initiated: November 20, ZQD4
Step A Meeting Bate: November 30, ZOG4
Qate Received at Step B: December 3, 2oO-4
Step B Decisien Date: Eece-other 15, EGG4
Issue Eode and Subject: 16.10:tG, 16..5UUG Best
Eause, REMQVAL
type: Discipline .
@rievant’s Name: Brian Reinhoid
EEQSUE
Did Managem-ent have Just Ca use under Article 16 of the National Agreement when it issued a
Notice of Removal to Carrier Reinhold for "Failure to Follow Instru<;tions“ and if not what is the
appropriate remedy? .
Decisions
- . i)
i he Dispute Resolution Team has RESQUJED this issue. Management did have just cause
when it issued the Notice of Removai to Carrier Reinhold: Carrier Reinhoid will he removed
from the Postal Service as of the date of this decision.
exeiomartorr `
ti
Carrier Reinhold w s issueda"i\iotice of Rernovai Faiiure to Feiiow instructions dated
October ZF, 2004§arrier Reinhold was authorized .5Ci edits ot overtime on Octoher 20, ZGG4
and proceeded to work one (1) hour and 41 units of ovei‘time.q`jihe empioyee was aiso charged
with not following the 5.0.Pt which in part states: ·’
“A/o empfoyea to case mad and/or go over ment aps and had mad
{misserzwnfssoeis) on oirertme unfess aut/ionized.

Case 1 :O5—cv—OOO47-Gl\/IS Document 43-11 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 2 of 4
rr ’~
Qrrranagement contends that Carrier Relnhoid not only expanded his street time, hut ignored the
instructions given to hirr?y Supervisor Burns on the morning of Qctoher 20 regarding the
handling of mail that wa brought hacic from the street. Supervisor Burns states that Shop
Steward Jeff Cushner was present during this meeting and not only did Supervisor Burns ‘
instruct the employee on this procedure, hut Steward Cushner also reiterated to Carrier
Reinhold what his responsibilities were in handling mail being brought hack from the street.
The Union does not dispute that this meeting took place and what was said, It is apparent that
Carrier Reinhold just chose to ignore the instructions he was given that morning.?El—le worlced
unauthorized overtime handling the mail that he brought back from the street. "
idx; Supervisor Surns contends that when he cruestioned Carrier Reinhold as to what he had been
J doing for the half hour why it took him over an hour hacia to the odlce from his
last street scan, the employee remained siient. On October 22, 2004 Mr. Reinhold was given
his Day in Court Interview with Steward Cushner present. When Carrier Reinhold was
confronted with the charges, Supervisor Burns states that he hecame helligerent and very
confrontationai and stated that irlanagement was out to get him.§§T his is not disputed hy the
Union or Carrier Reinhold. ‘
ya The lJnic·n’s main contention is that Carrier Reinhoid is heing singled out because he was issued
” a tiotice of Removal dated July 21, 2004 for Failure Foliow Instructions” which was reduced by
the Dispute Resolution Team to a 30 day lost time suspension. l·le reported hack to duty on
Sggicw October 15 2004 after serving his 30 day suspension.
l :2;
L/ ,»`.¢iThere no documentation in the file that would support this contentlonighere is no dispute
J" the Carrier did not follow the instructions that he was given hy irianagement the morning
that he committed these infractions. This employee has been given numerous chances and
opportunities to improve his work ethic and penformance as indicated hy his previous discipline
record. The Dispute Resolution Team tinds it hard to understand how an employee who just
returned from serving a 30 Day — Loss of Pay Suspension for "f`aiIure to Follow Instructions”
would just ignore the instructions given to him hy his Supervisor- In the Step B decision
reducing the Removal to the Loss of Pay Suspension, the Team stated that, J
" We a/so agree that Carrrier Rerinbo/d has become rhdriferent to previous/iv
issued o'/scgo/me and does not grasp the seventy of what it means. Hopefu//y
ruth a {oss ofpay suspension he wifi realize that he has to follow the
insoructions of his Sugervisors or HE EQUALS BE REMQ i/ED from the
Pasta} Service ’£ (Emphasrs ade:/eo)
Carrier Reinhold then remains silent when questioned ahout his actions. becomes heliigerent
E`? and confrontational at his day in court instead of explaining his actionsjrjyvleeks later, only after
receiving the “i‘~lotice Rernoualf, does he write a "detaiied" explariatiot. of what transpired"

Case 1 :O5—cv—OOO47-Gl\/IS Document 43-11 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 3 of 4 3
It is apparent that Carrier Reinhold has no intention of improving his work performance or
following the instructions of his Supervisor(s)L The Removal action is progressive and for just
cause.
2.,;‘Zas?i>yi M viafgpig
ssell J. Olive Jr. DATE Edward DiDomenico DATE
NALC STEP B REPRESENTATIVE USPS STEP B REPRESENTATIVE
cc: Step A Parties `
Nat'! Business Agent, NAU; p
Human Resources Manager
District Labor Relations
Area Labor Relations
Dispute Resolution Team File
POOM
PC) Box 9OUl
Bellmawr, NJ memes-sqm
A {ssa) ess-suiwsuu
Fax: (856)933·4—1
Case 1 :O_5gcv—_OQ_O47-GIV|ST_wQ:g2%rr_1§[_j;m4;g3_;m1_1_ Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 4 of 4
‘ e`“L‘ Tl? __n_ _ an e___.,4 _I ._ QQ] 44`. M ...... ....4 ...»e . ..
Vt tl
Points 0; Concern and Facts
I l) The facts prove management did not have just cause for the removal or discipline
in the charge filed
2) The Notice of Removal was written on 10/27/04 and issued on ll/0l/04
3) Was given the half hour to clean route and make list as instructed had nothing to
do with regular mail delivery SOP states to call hack hy 3:00 o’cloclc if going to he
later
4) Supervisor stated he didn’t know what I was doing at my case and confirmed hy
USPS . p
5) Was never charged or had discussion on expansion of street time until after
p grievance was sent to Step B ‘
6) Left mail bundle on top of desk at case as instructed
7) Supervisor Burns stated in the Day in Court as well as when the removal was
issued and in his statement that he didn’t know what I was doing at my case
8) Never talked to Supervisor Burns when returned to office
9) As stated in my statements and in the Day in Court as well as statements from
local president and shop steward, their was disputes
lh) The statements from myself , local presidents as well as the shop steward
n address this
ll) The statements from myself ., local presidents and shop steward explain this as
well as my local president having a discussions with the USPS about moving me to
another office
l2) The statements from myself , local presidents and the shop steward dispute the
charges as well as a USPS representative admitting that dates and time as well as
` some facts stated insupervisor statement where wrong or untrue
e 13) Gave explanation at Day in Court of the charge at that time and was upset cause
‘ I was being written up again after being back a week
ld) Disputed charges at Day in Court as well as through statements given to shop
I steward that week