At the stations we are continually having problems with carriers submitting improper documentation for sick leave absences.  Medical documentation that states the carrier “received treatment” or “under my care” is NOT acceptable if you want to be paid for the sick leave absence.  The Employee and Labor Relations (ELM) Manual, Section 513.364 states the following regarding sick leave documentation: 

513.364 Medical Documentation or Other Acceptable Evidence

When employees are required to submit medical documentation, such documentation should be furnished by the employee’s attending physician or other attending practitioner who is performing within the scope of his or her practice. The documentation should provide an explanation of the nature of the employee’s illness or injury sufficient to indicate to management that the employee was (or will be) unable to perform his or her normal duties for the period of absence. Normally, medical statements such as “under my care” or “received treatment” are not acceptable evidence of incapacitation to perform duties.

Supervisors may accept substantiation other than medical documentation if they believe it supports approval of the sick leave request.

We strongly recommend that carriers use the attached form for their physician to sign whenever medical documentation is requested by management.  Even if management doesn’t request it and you chose to bring medical documentation (why you would do that I don’t know), please use the attached form.  The local APWU uses this form as well and they have had no problems.   

THIS IS A MANAGEMENT TERM DON'T FALL INTO THE TRAP, TRUE UNDERTIME IS DETERMINED AT THE END OF THE DAY, NOT AT THE BEGINNING. THE NUMBERS MGT ARE GIVING YOU DO NOT INCLUDE MEETINGS,PARCELS AND ACCOUNTABLES OVER BASE,WEATHER DELAYS FOR SAFETY,PACKAGE PICKUPS,CUSTOMER CONTACTS,CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC DELAYS AND ANYTHING THAT DELAYS YOU OUT ON THE STREET. COMPLETE A 96 IF YOU HAVE OVERTIME AND CALL IN IF YOUR GOING OVER ON THE STREET,GET CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS AND WRITE WHAT YOU WERE TOLD AND WHO TOLD YOU THIS

ON YOUR 96 ALSO

Definition of UNDERTIME

 Very recently, several carriers have received discipline based on information management has obtained through the GPS enabled scanners you are carrying daily as part of your job.  That is a big no-no.  The attached MOU and article from the November 2009 Activist should provide sufficient information to defend against any discipline generated by GPS.

NBA Kathy Baldwin also made the following statement concerning this issue:  “They (management) can use it to track carriers but only IF they notify them of their intent to do so. Use the M-39 ban on covert street supervision.”

The M-39 states the following:

134 Street Management

134.1 Objectives

134.11 Street management is a natural extension of office management. All carriers

are to be notified to expect daily supervision on the street just as they receive

daily supervision in the office. For a delivery manager to fully understand and

control the organization, the manager must be aware of any conditions that

affect delivery anywhere within the service territory.

134.12 Accompanying carriers on the street is considered an essential responsibility

of management and one of the manager’s most important duties. Managers

should act promptly to correct improper conditions. A positive attitude must

be maintained by the manager at all times.

Conservation of energy is most important, and street supervision must also

be directed to achieve this objective. Supervisors must not permit

unauthorized deviations from the route, engine idling for excessive periods,

wasteful driving habits, and unauthorized or excessive vehicle stops and

moves on park and loop routes.

134.2 Techniques

134.21 The manager must maintain an objective attitude in conducting street

supervision and discharge this duty in an open and above board manner.

134.22 The manager is not to spy or use other covert techniques. Any employee

infractions are to be handled in accordance with the section in the current

National Agreement that deal with these problems.

When you are called in for an investigative interview, you MUST cooperate and answer the questions.  You are not helping yourself by sitting there and refusing to say anything.  This the time to defend yourself along with your steward.  Read and heed.

(From Article 16 of the JCAM, Was a thorough investigation completed? Before administering the

discipline, management must make an investigation to determine

whether the employee committed the offense. Management must ensure

that its investigation is thorough and objective. This is the employee’s

day in court privilege. Employees have the right to know with reasonable

detail what the charges are and to be given a reasonable opportunity

to defend themselves before the discipline is initiated.

665.3 Cooperation in Investigations

Employees must cooperate in any postal investigation, including Office of

Inspector General investigations.

Weingarten Rights

Federal labor law, in what is known as the Weingarten rule, gives each

employee the right to representation during any investigatory interview

which he or she reasonably believes may lead to discipline (NLRB v. J.

Weingarten, U.S. Supreme Court, 1975).

The Weingarten rule does not apply to other types of meetings, such as:

• Discussions. Article 16.2 provides that “for minor offenses by an

employee ... discussions ... shall be held in private between the

employee and the supervisor. Such discussions are not discipline and

are not grievable.” So an employee does not have Weingarten representation

rights during an official discussion (National Arbitrator

Aaron, H1T-1E-C 6521, July 6, 1983, C-03769).

• Employees do not have the right to union representation during fitness-

for-duty physical examinations.

The Weingarten rule applies only when the meeting is an investigatory

interview—when management is searching for facts and trying to determine

the employee’s guilt or decide whether or not to impose discipline.

The rule does not apply when management calls in a carrier for the purpose

of issuing disciplinary action—for example, handing the carrier a

letter of warning.

An employee has Weingarten representation rights only where he or she

reasonably believes that discipline could result from the investigatory

interview. Whether or not an employee’s belief is “reasonable” depends

on the circumstances of each case. Some cases are obvious, such as

when a supervisor asks an employee whether he discarded deliverable

mail.

The steward cannot exercise Weingarten rights on the employee’s behalf.

And unlike “Miranda rights,” which involve criminal investigations, the

employer is not required to inform the employee of the Weingarten right

to representation.

Employees also have the right under Weingarten to a pre-interview consultation

with a steward. Federal Courts have extended this right to premeeting

consultations to cover Inspection Service interrogations (U.S.

Postal Service v. NLRB, D.C. Cir. 1992, M-01092).

In a Weingarten interview the employee has the right to a steward’s

assistance—not just a silent presence. The employer would violate the

employee’s Weingarten rights if it refused to allow the representative to

speak or tried to restrict the steward to the role of a passive observer.

Although the ELM Section 665.3 requires all postal employees to cooperate

with postal investigations, the carrier still has the right under

Weingarten to have a steward present before answering questions in this

situation. The carrier may respond that he or she will answer questions

once a steward is provided.

The U.S. Postal Service is paying more than its fair share into the Federal Employees Retirement System mainly because of inflated salary assumptions, according to a new analysis released Tuesday by the USPS inspector general.

The analysis, conducted by an actuarial firm working under contract for the IG, urges the Office of Personnel Management to calculate the Postal Service’s future FERS obligations differently.

Like other agencies, the Postal Service and its employees contribute a total of 12.7 percent of payroll into FERS. But from 2001 through 2010, OPM assumed average governmentwide salary growth of 4.11 percent per year, while the actual increases received by the Postal Service’s unionized workforce ranged from 2.77 percent to 3.41 percent annually. In addition, more than 70 percent of those employees have already reached the tops of their pay scales, increasing the likelihood that current assumptions “overstate future salary growth,” the report says.

As of September 2011, the Postal Service had an estimated $11.4 billion surplus with FERS.

“The Postal Service cannot afford to make pension contributions that are not necessary for future benefits,” the report says.

In a statement, Postal Service spokesman Dave Partenheimer endorsed the findings, saying that excessive FERS charges are contributing to the agency’s financial crisis. Besides re-estimating future pension obligations, he said, OPM should also adjust the contribution rate. That new rate should be whatever is needed to fund the Postal Service’s obligations, but not overfund them, he said.

POStPlan Reviews

DOG BITE PREVENTION

Is your office doing all it can do to prevent dog bites?  Below are 10 questions that you should be asking and responding to with a YES:

1. Have dog bite prevention safety talks been provided to all carriers in the last 90 days?
2. Following safety talks, do supervisors conduct street observations of city carriers to verify carriers have Halt spray and a satchel in their possession?
3. Has the dog bite prevention JSA been provided to all employees in the last 90 days?
4. Have all new employees or reassigned employees been trained on dog bite prevention measures and use of warning cards?
5. Does unit maintain inventory of all problem dogs and hazards by route, and conduct checks to ensure carriers are utilizing cards for each location?
6. Does the unit update dog warning cards at least quarterly?
7. If the residents move, does the carrier forward Dog Warning Card to new address?
8. Has the unit developed and used materials to promote customer awareness of dog bite hazards such as lobby posters, newspaper articles and or mailings to customers regarding dog bite prevention?
9. Is there evidence local management has used animal interference letters according to national/local policy?
10. Has local Animal Control Office telephone # been posted and has the ACS been contacted to present dog bite prevention safety talk?

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.