U.S. Postal Service v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, AFL-CI
| Citation | 847 F.2d 775 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 87-7324,AFL-CI,87-7324 |
| Parties | 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2842 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS,efendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Cohen, Weiss & Simon, Keith E. Secular, John S. Bishop, New York City, Stropp & Nakamura, Robert H. Stropp, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Frank W. Donaldson, U.S. Atty., Herbert J. Lewis, III, Birmingham, Ala., Kevin Rachel, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before RONEY, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and PAUL *, District Judge.
National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC) appeals an order of a district court vacating an arbitration award which required reinstatement of an employee convicted of stealing from the mail. We affirm.
Jackie Watley, an employee of the United States Postal Service, stole the contents of two "test letters" prepared by a postal inspector. Mr. Watley was charged with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1709, which prohibits mail theft by a postal employee. Count I was dropped and Mr. Watley pleaded guilty to Count II. On September 4, 1985, he was sentenced to a term of three years, the first 60 days of which was to be served in prison with the remainder suspended, given five years probation, fined $2,000, ordered to reimburse the United States Postal Service $11.25 for the money stolen from the mails, and ordered to pay a special assessment of $50.00.
On April 11, 1985, Mr. Watley had been issued a notice of proposed removal, which apprised him of the charges against him, when the proposed removal would become effective, to whom he could respond, and other information, including his right to file a grievance under the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NALS and USPS. The postmaster issued a final letter of decision on April 19, 1985, discharging Watley and informing him that his conduct violated his fiduciary responsibilities and amounted to a betrayal of public trust.
Watley filed a grievance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement which provides for resolution of disputes through a multi-step grievance proceeding culminating in arbitration before a neutral arbitrator. When Watley's grievance came to arbitration in November, 1985, the arbitrator found that the first notice of proposed removal issued to Watley was defective because it did not originate from his immediate supervisor, but from someone higher in authority. The arbitrator labeled this defect a violation of due process and ordered Watley reinstated with back pay.
The postal service corrected this procedural error by issuing a second notice of proposed removal dated November 20, 1985, this one from Watley's immediate supervisor. This second notice was followed by a letter of decision from the Postmaster terminating Watley.
An appeal followed, culminating in a second hearing. In this second proceeding, the arbitrator upheld his previous ruling, finding the procedural error non-correctable, stating:
The Arbitration Hearing on November 15, 1985, addressed, in its early stages, the Union's charge that Management's Case had been flawed by its own procedural errors. The evidence was clear that Grievant's removal had not been proposed by Grievant's immediate supervisor, Roger Dempsey, but the action to remove originated with someone higher in authority than Dempsey who, under the circumstances, would not have had the authority to settle the Grievance at step one. In order for the proceedings to meet the requirements of the National Agreement, such a proposal for disciplinary action must originate with the immediate supervisor, who would then seek concurrence of higher authority. In this Case due process was not protected and the Grievance was upheld. From this point on, the merits of the Case are given no further consideration.
This type of a case is, inevitably, frustrating to Management which doubtless has ample evidence to justify removal of Grievant if the Case could be dealt with on its merits as it was in the Federal District Court, which does not operate under the National Bargaining Agreement. Once an employee's right of due process has been breached, that Case must be settled on the grounds that those charges cannot be upheld as a basis for disciplinary action. In order for the Grievant in this case to be charged by the Postal Service he would have to have committed a new offense while on duty. The second round of proposed removal, offers some additional information on the Judicial Action taken by the Federal District Court, but the charges made on November 20, 1985 are the same charges contained in the original Notice of Proposed Removal, dated April 11, 1985.
In making the Award in this Case, I shall reiterate that both rounds of removal notices and the corresponding Grievances are being dealt with as a unit. It is the verdict of this Arbitrator that the Grievances are upheld in recognition of the fact that the procedural errors were made by Management, as it took steps to remove Grievant from the Postal Service, undermined his right of due process.
The arbitrator ordered all notices and letters of decision removed from Watley's file, reinstatement with back pay and lost benefits (exclusive of 60 days grievant spent in jail serving the criminal conviction that arose out of these events) and 10% interest on the accrued pay that Watley was eligible to receive under the terms of the arbitration award, due to the delay in its implementation.
The district court vacated this award on a motion for summary judgment on the ground that reinstatement of Watley with the postal service, after his penal detention, is contrary to public policy.
The public policy point turns on whether the case meets the Supreme Court's decision concerning the effect of public policy considerations on labor arbitration awards in W.R. Grace and Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983). See also United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987). We see considerable merit in the district court's rationale that there is a public interest in not having postal employees who steal from the mail that brings a public policy to bear on this case. See United States Postal Service v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 736 F.2d 822 (1st Cir.1984) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luttrell v. Runyon, 96-4087-RDR.
...Lawrence is inconsistent with Bush, we believe the principles of Bush must control. Plaintiffs citations to USPS v. Nat. Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1988) and Sullivan v. Dept. of Navy, 720 F.2d 1266 (Fed.Cir.1983) are inapposite. Neither case sustains a constitutional......
-
Stead Motors of Walnut Creek v. Automotive Machinists Lodge No. 1173, Intern. Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
...479 U.S. 853, 107 S.Ct. 186, 93 L.Ed.2d 120 (1986), (Easterbrook, J., concurring).13 But cf. United States Postal Serv. v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775, 777 (11th Cir.1988) (noting "considerable merit" in the argument that "a public interest in not having postal employees......
-
Montes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.
...Raiford v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d 1410, 1413 (11th Cir.1990); United States Postal Serv. v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775, 778 (11th Cir.1988). Second, an arbitration award may be vacated if enforcement of the award is contrary to public poli......
-
G.J.B. & Associates, Inc. v. Singleton
...defect, if any, in the process Claro previously received. Braley, 832 F.2d at 1504; see also United States Postal Serv. v. National Assoc. of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775, 778 (11th Cir.1988) ("Cases have consistently held that a violation of procedural due process may be waived or cured."......
-
Securities Regulation - John L. Latham and Jay E. Sloman
...Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d 1410 (11th Cir. 1990); United States Postal Serv. v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1988)). 235. Id. (citing Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intfl, 861 F.2d 665 (11th Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 493 U.S.......
-
Expanded grounds for judicial review of employment arbitration awards.
...Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 903 F.2d 1410 (11th Cir. 1990); United States Postal Serv. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. (29.) 960 F.2d 939, 941 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 915 (1993). (30.) Lifecare Int'l Inc. v. CD Medical Inc., 68 F.3d......