REGULAR ARBITRATION-

USPS - NALC

.-SOUTHERN REGION

In the Matter of Arbitration

Between

United States Postal Service

Miami, Florida

and

Branch 1071

South Florida Letter Carriers

National Association of

Letter Carriers, AFL - CIO

Case # S7N-3S-D-26349

GTS # 12170

Case # S7N-3S-D-26350

GTS # 12171

Combined into :

Emergency Suspension and'

Discharge

Karen Alvarez (Grievant)

Record Closed : May 1,, 1990

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Irvin_Sob_el1_Arbitratr_r gfRecord

Appearances :

E2E_tb2_9U_ited_States_Postal Service

Mike Yagodnik

Labor Relations Assistant,

Miami, Florida.

and

Judson (Jud) Vaughn

Regional Administrative Assistant,

Atlanta, Georgia .NALC

AUG 21. 19'90L

WAYNEE ...``F

. ,.. . :'._'r.'ATLANTA, REGION3q

Case__H_ackgr~u_n_d_and_ State_ment_o_i_I_s_sue_g

The hearing of the enumerated issues was conducted pursuant to' j

the procedures stipulated under Article 15 of the National Agreement

(N/A) between the parties . On December 8, 1987 the Union filed a

written grievance on bahalf of Letter Carrier Karen Alvarez alleging

the Employer violated the N/A by simultaneously issuing on November

21, 1987 notices of Removal and Emergency_E1_acement_in_Off Duty

Status . The parties who combined the two enumerated matters into one

were unable to resolve the issues resulting from the Employer's

actions and, thus assigned them to final and binding arbitration .

The hearing of the matters was conducted by the above cited

arbitrator on May 1, 1990 at the Executive Annex of the General Mail

Facility in Miami . At the hearing the parties were accorded full

opportunity to present witnesses for direct and cross examination and

introduce such otherr evidence and argumentation each deemed

pertinent to the issues under consideration .

Although serious procedural improprieties in regard to the

issuance of the Not ir_e_gf Emergency Cusp------------__ were alleged by the

Union no issues of arbitrability, timeliness, and/or defect of form

were raised by either party . The advocates for the parties made

closing statements, each introducing a substantial number of

citations, after which the hearing file was closed. Although the two

issues were combined into the one enumerated action, they will be

treated separately in the Opinion and Award .

The Arbitrator would like to thank the parties for their

understanding and forebearance for patiently waiting for this and

other decisions delayed primarily due to my wife's protracted

2 .

illness. Their heartfelt expressions of sympathy is deeply

appreciated .

Issue :

The parties mutually stipulated the following issue :

Were the Notice _of _Removall_ and Emergency Placemrrt in anDuty Status for "just cause"? If not, what is theappropriate remedy?

Off

Facts In Case :

On November 21 the grievant, Letter Carrier Karen Alvarez was

issued the two cited Notices by Manager R . Stewart o.f the Ocean View

Station, Miami . Since the wording of each Notice was identical with

the exception of the disciplinary penalty imposed, only the Notice f

Emergency_Placement will be cited . That Notice stated, in its

relevant parts :

You are hereby notified that you will be suspended for a periodof 30 calendar days effective immediately . Do not return toduty until advised to do so .

The reasons for this suspension are :

It appears that your retention in an active duty status mayresult in damages to government property, loss of mail orfunds, or be detrimental to the interests of the governmentor injurious to you, your fellow workers, or the generalpublic . Sepcifically . . .

An investigation has revealed the following :

On October 5, 1989 Postal Supervisor William C .. Hoppner ofthe Ocean View Post Office contacted the Postal Inspectorsand advised that you had told him that you had left mail ina collection box at 34th Street and Prairie Avenue.

On October 5, 1989, Postal Inspector R . M . Williams went tothe collection box at 34th Street and Prairie Avenue .Inside this collection box was a No . 2 canvas mail sack. .There were three bundles of letter mail and four bundles of

flats inside the sack . A count disclosed the following :

98 First Class letters, 19 Second Class letters and 1'60Third Class letters, for a total of 277 pieces of lettermail .

64 Third Class flats and 46 flyers still contained in thebundles, for a total of 110 flats .

The sack contained 387 pieces of all classes of mail . Allof this mail was delayed mail .

On October 5, 1989, inspector Williams reviewed the deliveryrecords for the Ocean View Post Office. The route

assignment records disclosed that Route 10 was cased by theRegular Carrier, Marion Lloyd, Jr ., and carried on thestreet by you .

On October 5, 1989, at the Ocean View Post Office, CarrierMarion Lloyd, Jr . was interviewed . At the outset of theinterview Carrier Lloyd was shown the mail which ha beenrecovered from the collection box . He recognized it as mailhe had cased on October 4, 1989, for delivery on his route .He stated that on that date he had cased' the entire routeand thrown off a four-hour beef (request for assistance) .He stated that you had carried the street part of theroute . When you returned to the office in the afternoon, heasked' you how the route had gone and you replied, "Fine" .

On October 5, 1989, at the Ocean View Post Office , WilliamC . Hoppner , Supervisor of Mails, was interviewed . Mr .Hoppner stated when he came to work on October 5, 1989, youhad approached him and requested to talk with him inprivate. He took you into the office section . You told himyou had left part of the route which you were supposed tocarry the day before in a collection box at 34th Street andPrairie Avenue . You advised that the reason you had donethis was you did not want to run into "V Time" and haveproblems . Mr . Hoppner stated that at no time on October 4,1989,. had you advised anyone you had left part of the routein the collection box at 34th Street and Prairie Avenue .Mr . Hoppner provided copies of the carrier rings for the dayand provided a sworn statement attesting to the facts hecited above. The carrier went to the street to begincarrying your route . At 1460 (approximately 2 :40 p .m .) youreturned to the office and ended your tour . Mr . Hoppnerpointed out that this was only eight hours of work . He alsostated that your statement that you were trying to avoid "VTime", which would be aany time over ten hours was notplausible .

On October 5, 1989, at the Ocean View Post Office you werecalled to the Manager's Office to be interviewed by PostalInspectors M . L . Lively and R . M. Williams . You were

4 .

advised that the purpose of the interview was your statementin the morning to Mr . Hoppner, as well as the mail which hadbeen recovered from the collection box on 34th Street andPrairie. You were shown the mail on the floor . InspectorWilliams then read you your Miranda Rights, using thestandard Postal Service Form 1067 . At the conclusion of thereading of the rights, you requested to be allowed to have aShop Steward and also stated, " I guess I needs an attorney .NALC Carrier Representative Margo Melton was brought to theManager's Office. She was advised of the facts of thecase. Shop Steward Margo Melton immediately turned to youand told, you not to sign the Form 1067 and stated, "Don'tsay anything and we will get a lawyer ." Based on your UnionSteward's advice you declined to make further statements andthe interview was terminated .

On October 5, 1989, 1 wason October 4, 1989, I haddistributing the mail to

interview (sic) . I disclosed thatbeen in charge of the carriers

Route 10 . On this particular day,in response to a request for assistance by Carrier MarionLloyd, I assigned you to carry four hours on the route . IIsigned your name on the Form 3997, Request for AuxillaryAssistance . I further stated that you would not beavailable for "V Time" until approximately 4 :00 p .m. Iadvised that you had had plenty of time to carry the routeand had you needed more time, supervisors were available and' ,would have authorized it . At the request of InspectorWilliams , I checked with the remaining supervisor, whoadvised that you had neither requested overtime norapproached him about leaving mail in the collection box at34th Street and Prairie Avenue. You are aware of the properprocedures for the handling of all mail . Conduct of thenature cited above connot be tolerated ' . You are chargedwith improper disposition of mail and willful delay of mail ..

You have the right to file a grievance under theGrievance/Arbitration procedure set forth in Article 15, Section2 of the National Agreement within fourteen (14) days of yourreceipt of this notice ..

The essence of the Union' s position is stated in its Letter of

Additions and Corrections addressed to Area Manager Oscar Rodriquez-------------------------

by Vice President William E .' Burroughs, Jr .

I am in receipt of your decision in the above captioned caseand I disagree with your decision . This letter will serveas the Union' s additions and corrections to that decision .

Contrary to your allegations as stated in the decision, thegrievant did in fact, provide a reasonable explanations forher actions . While presenting the grievance at Step 2 Ms .Alvarez explained her actions and described the situation

5 .

that drove her to take the aaction she did . Shedemonstrated remorse and regret for actions would berepeated in the future .

There was no effort by Ms . Alvarez to cover up the incidentor deceive the Postal Service . She did not refuse toparticipate in the investigation as you state but wasunderstandably hesitant to incriminate herself under thecircumstances .

It is my opinion we must fully examine all potential for

rehabilitation in this case . We have an employeee with an

otherwise unblemished work record who made a mistake, anerror in judgment without serious harm to the Postal Serviceor the public . No harmful publicity resulted from the

incident .

Management routinely and continuously delays greater amountsof mail than what was delayed in this instant case, so topoint the finger at the grievant and say she has breachedthe trust of the employer and has caused the employee

irreparable harm is plain silly . You cannot and should nothold employees to a higher standard than you hold yourmanagers, that would not be unlike the proverbial potcalling the kettle black .

Disparate treatment is also evident as other employees weretreated in a different manner despite similar charges,Shelton Hill, Jean Mathurin, and Ed Darmofol to name just a

few. While warranted , however, the discharge is far too

severe and represents "overkill" .

Given the grievant' s frank admissions the parties'

representatives, in an effort to eliminate testimony over facts which

were not basically in dispute, were willing to stipulate the

following fifteen matters as fact .

1) The grievant had been assigned a four hour "hand off" onOctober 4 from the regular carrier of Route 4010 .

2) The grievant punched in at 6 :02 and did "office work"casing other routes until 9 :48 (9:30) at which time shepunched out for street delivery of the four hour segment ofRoute 4010.

3) The grievant was informed that the assignment was offour hours duration. The expectation was that she wouldcomplete delivery on time to complete her daily eight hourwork assignment .

6 .

4) The mail she took was four ledges of Rt . 4010 .

5) Route 4010 is a bicycle route. Part of the routerepresents mail carried from the Post Office. The remainderof mail is delivered from mail obtained from collectionboxes in which relay sacks are inserted'', for pickup by thecarrier .

6) The gri.evant did not prepare the mail . Mr . Lloyd theincumbent of Rt . 4010 performed that function . He preparedthe mail for the grievant and also the two relay sacks whichwere necessary to enable Ms . Alvarez to complete herassignment .

7) Two sacks were delivered to the relay box for ultimatedelivery by the grievant . Of the two she delivered one. andultimately left the other containing 387 pieces of mail inthe box .

8) The grievant returned to the Station and punched out at14 :60 (2 :40 p .m .) . She did not tell any of the Supervisorson duty that she had left mail in the relay box on 34thStreet .

9) At the Station she conversed with Carrier Lloyd . Whenhe asked her "how was her day" her only reply was "fine" .

10) On October 5 she reported in at her normal time of 6 :00a .m. and advised. Supervisor William C . Hoppner that she hadleft part of the mail she was supposed to have delivered onnthe 4th in the relay box at 34th and Prairie Avenue .

11) Supervisor Hoppner asked her why she had left the mail .She said she was afraid of "V time" (penalty overtime) .Hoppner's statement in that regard went unreb .uttted .

12) Po_sta2_lnseectQL_ Williams went to the relay box on themorning of the 5th of October . That sack in the relay

box contained 387 pieces of mail of which. 277 were lettermail and the remainder ( 110 pieces ) " flats" .

13) The grievant had no authorization to curtail mail and infact never requested permission from any supervisor .

14) The grievant was charged with Iropt9R2n 6is_egsi_tion ofand Wil_ lful_6e_lay a_f Mail_ .

15) No procedural questions were raised by either party .

7 .

EftIlyant Contract Provisions

Article 1 6, Section 7 - Emergency-Procedure:

An employee may be immediately placed in an off duty status(without pay by the Employer but remain on the rolls wherethe allegation involves pilferage, or in cases whenremaining on duty may result in damage to U .S . PostalService property, 1gM5_g f mail_or_ funds (underlining by thearbitrator) . The employee shall remain on the rolls (non-duty status) until disposition of the case has been made .If it proposed to suspend such an employee for more thanthirty (30) days or discharge the employee the action takenunder this section may be made the subject of a separategrievance .

Manageement_oi_Deliyery_Serv_ice Manual

115 DISCIPLINE

115.1 Basic Principals

In the administration of discipline, a basic principal mustbe that discipline should be corrective in nature, ratherthan punitive . No employee may be disciplined or dischargedexcept for just cause . The delivery manager must make everyeffort to correct a situation before resorting todisciplinary measures .

gity_p11ivery_g§Eriers Manual

112 GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES

112.1 Efficient Service

Provide reliable and efficient service . Federal statuesprovide penalties for persons who knowingly or willfullyobstruct or retard the mail . The statutes do not affordemployees immunity from arrest for violations of law .

131 .1 Se cu_rity_o_f_Ma_il

.14 'Do not remove stamps from mail or throw away or improperlydispose of mail . Line through uncanceled stamps ( except onphilatelic mail ) to prevent re-use .

.33

Actual-Delivery

Unless otherwise instructed by a unit manager, deliver allmail distributed to your route prior to the leaving time forthat trip and complete delivery within scheduled time . Itis your responsibility to inform management when this cannotbe done .

8 .

131 .4 Reeorting_R_e_guirements_

.41 It is your responsibility to verbally inform, management whenyou are of the opinion that you will be unable to case allmail distributed to the route , perform other requiredduties ,. and leave on schedule or when you will be unable tocomplete delivery of all mail .

.45 Do not curtail or eliminate any scheduled delivery orcollection trip unless authorized by a manager , in whichcase you must record all facts on Form 1571 .

668 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS_MANUAL-(E/LR)

668.2 Service-Matters

.27 Obstructing the Mail . The United States Code,. Title 18,Section 1701 , provides penalties for persons who knowingly and'willfully obstruct or retard the mail . The statute does not affordemployees immunity from arrest for violations of law .

Position of the Parties :

Introduction :

Since the essence of each parties position has already been

developed in the ample records cited by the arbitrator additional

facts, arguments , and evidence cited by the advocates in development

of their respective positions will not be reiterated with : attribution

to a specific party . Instead when relevant to the arbitrator's

decision they will be cited by him in the body of his O_gi_nions_ .

The Union' s_ Po_si_tion :

The Union contended that the Employer ' s Charge of Improper

Disposition of the Mails and Willful Delay of Mail , not only failed

to adequately portray the grievant ' s admitted breaches but also was

deliberately selected by Management to provide a rationale for its

9 .

most severe sanction namely Re_gv_al_ . Had the Employer stipulated a

less serious charge more compatible with the grievant ' s admitted'

violation of the N/A and more specifically the City Delivery

Carrier' s Manual, a Susge_nsiQQn_ of much lesser duration would have

been in order for an employee with a record as emblemished as that of

the grievant . In this latter sense the Service's complete

repudiation of the progressivity principle violated Section 115 .1 of

the Management of Delivery Service Manual and its Removal action

could only be construed as punitive rather than corrective .

Management 's Fnsition_

Management contended thaat the charge not only reflected the

extreme seriousness of the grievant' s offense but also denied that it

was deliberately chosen to circumvent the norm of progressivity . It

argued that Alvarez's conduct on the day in question in which she

deliberately failed to inform her Supervisors , either while on the

route or in the office upon her return , or even alternatively bring

the undelivered relay sack back to the office , could only indicate a

deliberate attempt to obstruct the mail . By so doing she not only

violated all relevant Postal regulations but also threatened the

integrity of the Service .

Opinion_

The charge chosen by the Service " Improper Disposition of the

Mails and Willful Delay of Mail " has oft been cited by the Employer

in a number of situations which have ultimately resulted in the

assessment of diverse penalties. In reference to a .Removal action it

has been generally utilized in situations in which either "dumping of

10 .

mail", or the placement of deliverable mail in waste bins for "No

Obvious Value Mail " (NOV) destined for destruction has taken place .

However the Obstruction and Delay Charge has also been used with at

least equal frequency to cover situations in which the mail utilized

was mishandled in diverse fashions and in which in most cases no

removal was requested . Other charges in which removal has been

sustained have emphasized the willful delay of mails charge when

undelivered mail has been found in the g,rievant ' s truck and/or

automobile . That willful delay charge ( see CRHy 4H-D-31949 , 31953,

Neil Bernstein ) has sometimes been combined with, Improper

Dispg§ition . However, other charges treated as synonymous with the

above have been utilized . In another grievance cited by the Employer

the charge was Unsatisfactory Performance for Failure to_Deliver Mail

Assigned . Also cited by the Service , was a case in which the

grievance was denied, the cited charge was Failure to Follow

Instructions_ Fesulting_in_Delay and Obstruction in Delivery_9.f_tt2ft

Mails .

The only case partially analogous to the instant grievance in

that the undelivered mail by the grievant (57 pieces) was left in a

collection box was that in which the grievance protesting a Removal

and Emergen"_y_Susgension was denied by Arbitrator Harry Letter (W7N-

5D-D-1241) . The two charges utilized by the Employer were _Fan_l_ur_e

t o_Follow_ Instruct ions_" and "Obstructionn_of_Mail,_Matter_"" . Delay_ol

1st and_'_nd_ Class_Mail . Those cases were only deemed partly

analogous because the grievant never informed his Supervisor that he

had placed the mail in a delivery box (in fact, denied it) and the

grievant's record contained from four previous elements in which the

11 .

grievant had brought undelivered mail back to the Station without

informing his Supervisor that he was doing so . In his decision

Arbitrator Letter was heavily influenced by the grievant's repeated

failure to follow instruction, either to inform his Supervisor of the

fact he was leaving undelivered mail in a relay box and/or not

requesting auxiliary assistance when he found himself unable to

deliver the mail within the time stipulated by his Form 3996 . He was

equally, if not more, influenced by the grievant' s denial under oath

of having placed the mail in the collection box, instead attributing

the presence of the mail therein to someone in the Station "who was

out to frame me" . All of these elements sharply differentiate the

case cited above from. that of the instant grievance. In fact, none

of the actions of the grievant's in the cases cited by the able

Employer's Representative are sufficiently analogous to that of Ms .

Alvarez to provide more than a modicum of support for the Employer's .

Emergency Suspension and Removal actions .

Neither, with one exception, namely N1N-IN-D-18718 & 18719

decided by Arbitrator Marcia Greenbaum were the cases cited by the

NALC Representative sufficiently analogous to the instant one to

support the Union's contentions . The cases were analogous in that in

both cases, namely the one decided by Greenbaum and the instant

grievance the NALC's major argument was that the charges raised

the Employer did not constitute appropriate descriptions ci f the

grievant ' s breach and thus could not be utilized to

Employer ' s actions .

justify the

by

12.

In the case decided by Ms . Greenbaum the grievant was charged

with' and did not deny failure to account for funds . The Removal had

been proceeded by a Letter of Demand_ for restitution of C .O .D ..

funds. Ms. Greenbaum found that the Employer had made an deficient

charge which could neither support an Emergency Suspension nor a

Removal . The Service tried and failed to prove its implied charge

namely theft and/or embezzlement, which it really utilized as a basis

for its "in extremis" treatment .

In sustaining the grievance over the emergency suspension

Greenbaum stated, "Based on the Supervisor's choice of charge and! the

state of the evidence I found there was no just cause for the

emergency suspension" . For the same reasons I found no just cause

for the dismissal .

As indicated above the term "Improper Disposition of the Mail"'

is a non-specific one covering such infractions, ranging, from dumping

deliverable mail, placing mail in containers clearly destined for

destruction, to inadvertent acts of mishandling and misplacing mail

so as to delay it and even conceivably to misplacing mail or even

putting mail in the wrong boxes . Each of these latter lesser

violations could result in the charge of delaying and/or obstructing

mail . In between are such acts, which would not call for termination

for a single incident such as Unauthorizedd_Curtailment _of Mail .

In many cases the generic term ImpEgR2n_L)ispg5ition of Mail is

coupled with a more specific charge as "Unauthorized Curtailment of

Mail" . This arbitrator finds that the grievant's failure to remove

acid/or deliver the mail from the relay sack is an offence of such inn

genre .

13 .

Arbitrator ' s in their treatment of delay or obstruction of mail

have differentiated between acts which have as their consequences the

delay of mail and those which were deliberately and intentionally

designed to do so. The grievant ' s offense is of the first category .

Accordingly the arbitrator finds the Union's contention that the

Employer ' s charge against the grievant of Willful Delay of Mails was

improperly drawn is valid . He therefore modifies the charge to a

lesser one namely Imgroeer _Diseositign , Unauthorized Curtailment and

Delay of Mail . His findings , thus , are based not only on the

modified and lesser charges but also the evidence , which amply proved

there was no just cause either for the Emerg _enr_Y_Suseension or the

Removal . In fact, the evidence would not support the Emergency

Suspension even in the absence of the lesser charge .

The Emergency Sus_gension was designed by the parties solely for

the purpose of relieving the Service of what reasonably could be

construed as an imminent danger if the contractual thirty day waiting

period with pay and generally " on the clock ", were to be honored by

the Employer . To sustain an Emergency Suspension the Service is

required only to "prove " that it is reasonable to believe that if

allowed to remain on the clock for the requisite thirty days the

person concerned could_ (underlining by the arbitrator) act in such a

manner as to bring him/her within the ambit of 16 .7 ( see underlined

part ) . The Employer failed to provide one iota of affirmative

evidence which would be compatible with even this greatly reduced

standard of proof and based its contentions solely upon the

grievant ' s behavior in the one instance . That behavior is so far

removed from the imminent danger criterion that no reasonable person

14 .

could conceive that the grievant would subsequently , if allowed to

remain "on the clock" commit an act which would undermine the

interests of the Service .

Although the issue of the propriety of the Emergency Suspension

has been resolved on the basis of its substantive merits the Union's

claim notwithstanding stipulation number 15 of serious procedural

impropriety must be answered .. The record of the grievance, notably

the delay before the Notice of Emergency Suspension was issued (JT

Exh . #2 and #3) amply proves the Union's contentions . By the end of

October 5, 198'3 when the_grievant was placed off the clock the

Service had in its possession all the facts it ultimately cited in

its Notice, namely the Postal Inspector's (P .I .) Report and the

grievant's own verbal admission and attempted rationalization of her

actions to her Supervisor . Yet it chose to delay the issuance of the

Notice_of_Emerggney_5-useCnsion to November 22, almost six and half

weeks later, to coincide with its issuance of the Notice of Removal .

Since the standards of proof required for the two Notices are

different the Emergency Suspension notice is issued relatively

promptly in most Service jurisdictions .1 Yet the Employer chose not

to schedule the Pre-D hearing until November 8, 1989, at which time

the grievant finallly was allowed to give her version of the events,

including her reasons for her actions . It took an additional two

weeks after the transmittal of the Pre-D Kesults in which Removal was

1 Generally three or four days after the event given the timenecessary to type the matter up by the E/LR office. In somejurisdictions preliminary Notices are sent quickly after the personhas been put off the clock .

15 .

recommended to prepare and issue the two Notices. Yet despitz the

fact there is a box to check in order to request an Emergency

Suspension such was not don e. Despite this omission the Notice of

Emer_ggnr_y_Susgension was issued ..

Although finding no "just cause" for either the Emergency

Suspension or the grievant' s termination , I still find Mr . Alvarez's

offenses extremely serious . I do so because her excuse for not

telephoning her Supervisor both to inform him of her plight and to

await instructions was an extremely flimsy one . She contended that

her bicycle route was in a residential single home neighborhood and

in the absence of public phones she, who was unfamiliar with the

route was reluctant to ask permission to use a residential phone .

However, a shopping area with a large number of pay phones (Arthur

Godfrey Road) was less than five minutes away by bike and the station

was less than ten minutes away . When asked to explain her actions in

leaving the mail in the box her responses revealed the nature of her

dilemma and the reason she made no effort to contact any Supervisor .

If she had requested permission , to continue on the route she was

obviously afraid, as indicated by her response to Hoppner, of being

accused of taking too long in delivering the route and thereby

incurring the possible charge of Unauthorized Overtime .. In addition

if told to complete the route she would finish it too late to pick up

her chi Id in school, and if she were to ignore his instructions, and

return to the station in time to clock out and pick up her child, she

feared being cited for either Insubordination_ or Failure to Following

Instruction . If she returned the undelivered mail sack to the

16 .

station she could be cited for Unauthorized Curtailment of Mail . AllI , ,

of these alternatives would be most likely to bring her well within

the ambit of likely discipline . Instead she chose what she believed

was the best alternative namely to return to the station at her

proper time , clock out without informing anyone of the undelivered

mail in the relay box, and pick up her daughter , all the while still

leaving the undelivered mail in the box . She apparently reasoned

that by coming i n the next morning immediately "coming clean", and

offering to deliver the undelivered mail , she might get by with a

lesser penalty than presented by any of the other alternatives . Her

reasoning , as evidenced by the charges brought against her, proved

invalid . Thus , although staying grievant ' s Removal tier infractions

were of sufficient severity that although reinstated she will be

awarded no back pay .

17 .

Award :

1 . There was no just cause for the Emergency Suspension i'

Letter Carrier Karen Alvarez .

2. Ms. Alvarez will be paid in full for the period frorii October

E, 1989, when she was put "off the clock", to November 22, 1989 . She

will be compensated for forty (40) hours per week or r ht (8) hours

per day at the rates prevailing as of the date of her placement off

the clock .

No just cause was found for the Removal of Letter Carrier

Alvarez .

4 . She shall be restored to her former position at the earliest

possible date this Award can be implemented without loss of seniority

and benefits but with no back pay . The period between the date she

was removed and her restoration to duty will be counted as a

disciplinary suspension .

Tall ahassee , Florida This is a certified true

August /f, 1990 copy of Arbitration Award

Irvin Sobel, Arbitrator

18 .