h :FORE THOMAS F . LEVAK , ARUM

in the Matter of the ReqularWestern Rr.gional Arbitrationbetween :

U . S . POSTAL SERVICE DISPUTE AND GRIEVANCEfilth "SERVICE' CONCERNING SUSPENSION

FOR ABUSIVE LANGUAGEand TOWARD A SUPERVISOR

AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION ARbITRATOR ' S OPINIONthF. "UNION" AND AWARD

(t; . Dominguez, the "Grievant")

This matter came for t.e•,sring before the Arbitrata .m ., November 19 . 1985 at the offices at the Service, .California. 'l'ire Servicewas represented by Louis E. Surles ..union was reptesented by W. Daniel Boons. The Grievant appeaand lave testimony on his own behalf . Testimony and evi dencewere received . The Unit„r closed itss case through oral closingargument . The Service tiled a post-hearing brief with theArbitrator on Decemtaer 26, 1985 . Based upon the evidence and thearguments of the parties, the Arbitrator decides and awards asfollows .

OPINION!

1 : THE CHANGE AND THE ISSUE.

This case concerns a Notice Of Removal which wass;ubseq uent. ly unilaterally reduced by the Service to, a 21-da+y

sid5 eprovsuspension. The Notice of Removal dated March 27, 198as follows :

You are hereby notified that you willremoved from the Postal service at the end e,your tour of duty on Aril 26 , 1985 . The

reasons for t h i s action i s :'

On March 6, 1x85 , at approximately 11 :30 p .m .

ycuu ~:ime into the ta ut office and asked ActingTony' SSuperinten.,ient Lee Morrison why the PTFclerks weie not notifi ed that they werew0IK2 ng et'lht hours . I had already told thePTF's assi gna.d to my machine that they would,ne workinq the eight hours. You then, asked me

i, t toll h' St,near .aker had been. notified . I told

iou tlaat 1 did not know Snoemaker , bat it he

wa :: like hi . father, he was inde. f.endentlyywealthy . i said this because I had known hoi

t .atnet and has fart)' a was. always talKt ny at.ruut

hc•w ia+uacn ,nuney tat! had . I then I e f t t1 .e

r;t fire .

Ak,ktr-,ximately fifteen mu ,tos later I wail inthe 040 aisle and you approschp(+ me again .

There were ap+roximatel' y twelve employees

working in the aisle . In a very loud voiceyou said, " Liar, Liar , you're a Liar!" Atthat time I asked you to come into the office.I told You I had not lied and thec a must be amis-understanding . You continued your loud

remarks calling me a liar . As I got by the

scales, I saw Mr . Rambonga , an acting

supervisor, and I asked you i f you wished toliar in front of another supervisor .

call me aRaising your voice, you again yelled "' t,iar,Li ar, Liar!"

When wn arrived in the ottice, Lee Morrison

and Wend i Sherman were there . You continue l

to be offensive . Neither Wendi no r I would

respond and you then yelled to me stating"You're a shitheadi" I then asked you what

did y4Iu say and you again yelled at me "You rea shithead. Go ahead, send me home , send me

home!" You then said, "luck you alit" andwalked out of the room .

You have readily admitted to calling me a"shr inead", "Liar " , and stating "luck you

all" .

ti-here is no requirement that PTY's be notifiedthat they have to work eight hours .

Managea,,-nt in the Stockton, Main Post officehas n,,titied PT) s by the public address as _amatter of courtesy .

You have previously been admonished by eminentarbitrators that hyper, loud, disruptive, and

overzealous conduct is improper .

The Postal Service cannot and will not condonethis type of benavior from you any longer .

to addition, the Iollowincr elements of yourLast te=cotd h .+ve been considered

in arriving

at this dccisron :

Previous records of your discipline prior

t,:) this have teen obtained and are nowunder the Trusteeship of Louis E . Surles,

hat.rur e<elat bins Representative, Stockton,

CA . These record5 are under Mt. curies'

t, i :itet-snij, t .asad on a previous Title1411

trsoiut.run dated Au,lust 16, 1404 . k .12!

l'IIe Servtre unilaterally" r . iticeci the hitter ' of Se^ricvr~i : ta! a

.rl-ei ty suspension throug h a :+te1 2 dectaiun letter dated May so

I9$5 .

1v}, i 1 .':'' the Notice (if Removal does not state a I .e4- t f }t•

c tlarae, the Serv i c.P's Step 1 response states that the Gr I evallt

w :Is 1';suad the Notice of HemrVal "for his loud and it.ustve

lan•tua,t•' towards a Postal StipervIsfr, and that his toast ntstory

it ~.u.ilnttat rucl,tents warranted his temov--aa . purther, the Ste p l'

1n I'ti n letter staled that : 'The grievant had exercisedabusive

atlcl profane ) .,ji quays towards a supervisof on Marc h 6, 198', and

iu ftorlt of several en,pi•Iyees.U That decision letter alsosix occasions betweenondetailed alleged similar last misconductL

Auqust 1981, and January 1984 .

The stipulated issue to be resolved by the Arbitirator

girl the Employer violate Article 2 of the 1984National Agreement when it _unilaterallyn,oditied a Notice of Removal to a 21-day

susperlsior to the E rievant , Gary M . Dominguez?

Anei,r' Ga

Isid the 1'. .,1;1j .,er violate Article 17 . Section I

3 of the 1484 National Agreement when itunilaterally modified a Notice of Removal to a-,I-:jay suspension issued to the Grievant, Gary

M . uuininguez?

And/ Or

Did m .,nagement have lustcause to issue a

Noti,-«" of keunval which was unilaterally

ir.,,dr t iecr to a L1-day' suspension to the

Grievant . Gary M . Doming'uez?

it not . what was is the appropriate remed . .

(J3)

11 . k INUINGS OF t-;cr .

ri.ev ., :, tt has been employedi b' the ser v ice ;, '.'9_ _ • . .- .. , . . . .r . of h ." .ctrva 1

4 . . .- _,_. _e Sto kte:I ai€tit}tlayed atwas . .e { I +113ti aI 'il QI: Mnrc}i .7 . .the ar evacit. p . .,Inuer of yearsn7.1 , :M :er k . le..l anr4

s a S}",la : ; t' ewdr .L, .dnd _,11 lice It :1r" 6'l ' '. my 4a.1 arve .

.'tJ l, It Ill. t.I0 Ue:.• u

,, #-I'vr•<l as ~i duel reward. 1r, was stilrulate di by the 1.u,rt .et ,t

the irsevant wai . s .ttt11 t : anen rel evant .

tli !t° .it lily ) that it s ~

1,e :, ', .I s,'It'r, aasa a :;hoj ;.te * :tt I .

~ i'i M .i r'c-}i t>, 198 `„ 1 'te lif 1e!.V'<t .it wass workin'*1 0

1 pt1 ;41 1 ,_ !" c .cli'i,fial rrt,ttI h,.; F? Steward time , kt eitrn,ut ! tl

i ,n,, tdr • *.r( u,~1 : rl t . e r'er1 tw<) I'% s on the tool krtao .•, f i .

k"YC•Qrd„ake~r ard T_ Yarlir•r .

ket and Yart , ei tc; let hitn that they had ',u-dthoen,,i; ;rne` r-tt,d to ( . ut,, ti Off their 6-hout Shin, eid"'+tl

t i .that at tit it tin ;z they were told that they would lie woo k . it i .lit

additional 2 hours . They te,id the Gri,evant that they t+ei tevetd

they were entitled to 1 hour notice before having to work e,tier 6

hrrar

In f,i= t , P'l't''ss are not, contractually ent.ttled to "'it ir.el

howeve r, it, wa s the tin' e hutted testimony of the 4irievant that lkt

the :,tr,rkton office t. tie Service has followed the estritxiishedcustom and l rad t A ;, et of yivieidy PTt: ' s 1 hour notice whenever theyare required to work over 6 hours . Because the CtI .*v -+ nt' l !r

finds t(n t ittord , the Arbitratestimony was unrebutteCourt itute!s tact .

iev ;int told Shoemaker anti Yarber that tie, wouldr; r,x,.- Invest i dtat, e the matter, and went to the Tour off Ace to dli : .. ..CUSS 10

Wheni sori, 1t.ite* o,at t.i•i with Tour Superintendent Lee Morras -°~" «rtiveti at the office , Morrisoon was there,

t at il .ewantj other sul.,ervisoars ,. MPLSK Supervisor . Charles . Wilson an

St .ertnan .

The t,rievar, t approached Morri., an and complained that PTF`'s

di

-e outtoinarv 1-1 notlee.

tl f'F' "s h thad

i jend e su ervisu« 1 sNone ofgthe thr, l r lnot>cee iellr s ~nrtnh.n an,ir as not an estat,lA h di ce whour not:stated edt,her ( 1) that the 1- ffi* a air i) that the Grievant , as 810,L,

A'U :a t., .a11U and t,t c~t Ice, or (2tor right to protest non-compliance<, rit y.hail 110 au

, actire oti the around that it was not a right guar antee

National Agreement .

The Grievantt told them t hat at lea.- one P'm Shoem.iker, hard

not been given n,'t ice . Wit son responded that Shoemaker 'was jr, t

,rot, .~ibly independently wealthy .' tlxeasn lwlike nis dad coi evidence received •,t tide arbitration hearing does net corrobr, at:e

{Iii 1 ::ootl,s claim that he stated at the time that he didd not kn'ir..w

;hot'iliaker, anti the Attiitt . i tctr finds (l); that Wilson nd ,.ate n,- such

St . :t elr erit, and ( ) ) t rrat h i lson s remark regardLi,q Shoeideakci w as

t^ Ill ei sat cas .1 AC ti, .u ldxe r .

i t htlulil to r. t e . 1 it t hi s joint t trat it is c lea . fro' th er.• i -h .te , i, . . . . .r l

e id('il .-•' th,xt i tls ::xi t SIif,rmaI :, CO : t .F• : eted 1J misled tacted ast d'1iwi tr,ter,•tent, Kathryn Y,ontt ,r Su 1xtdud w4< :rt A dAil . l .

,, It Aa F,.it C Aal itivt '-, t A ;.fiat ,rt tt .e to "ts in t his it. tit 10,11 at

t ire artl t . l-it i+.,dl heat 1 :, 1 t ti .it when she asked the PTF , who h .,.<3.

r•TI W itkina at. the ti :u,- whether they had received 1 hour not ice,

i Ul"J'Att c'Ct1A of tine PTV S, un • l's ti,PP; Su* ti :s `. d l.`

1 t'•

rt . I~t,t` i ,. -sut,ed . vis A ,in , halt foot be• . nn not : t i * t d 1rt anf

tw,i f t f,,,t they wt.u ld t . . rot puffy over 6 houra .

;it!• (,r ievar,t retuirio-i t . ) ttte w o.rkron rr f luor, and stt ., y- n .1 to

tell huett .iker arid Yart,er wt . it Wi Ison anti :herm,iin h•ad t oid htili .

At t.hat point in time', wt lson app roached the Grievant , alit theGrievant asked Wilson in the pteaewce of Shoemaker an', !artierwhether tie had in fact wiiven them the 1-hour notice . iTltlit<i'It

l .,oked at Shoemaker and s a id, "1 don't know him .*

The Gr iev+int aat,1 Wilson together wtai ked away f rills Shoemaker;tnd Yarher , with Wilson telling Grievant that they would qo tothe oft ice anti " straighten the matter out ." On the w .iy, ttieGrievantr complained to WiI• , ctn that he had misled hint. The

int was angry and upset, and Wilson ultimately' asked thet,riev .a .;i ievatit : *Are you cal l iuq me a liar?" The Crievant resi ;ande +l,

"ie :;, YOU 're a 1 iar ."

Wilson al leries that these comments tuck place in ttort of; hoemaker, Yarher and other emplo yees working in the area .

i t i s c lear from the evidence that the Gr i evant'sHowever ,comments were not made in the presence of other employeets .Invest iilater long testifipei that she interviewe' al numerousc•utll .5, . ea in the area , includ ing Shoemaker and Yarher , arila that

h-"' ll tliar ' comment was made Anone of them conf irmed that their'eSen('e of emitl .gees. Indeed, i.onq testified that she was neverlaware pi !err t.o ttie arbitration hearing that the Service was

al.le< irrt that the l jar comments had been made in the presencehe

er ci were made ! later after the her.all GLievant uYt any of h tie r ritploy eei. and that it t was leer

impfirres Loci that t

»1 ia" t o and Wii lawn had,returned to the Tour oitice.

The Cr ieviant and Wilson continued walking, and Wi Iso,a curl"' con,!1 iar.e t :r tt.vatit whet tier the Grievant would repeat his ",l i

rri wont o f a t'ttries : ; . Ttie Cilevant responded that tie would.

th t p .itnt, Wilson stopped the Gr evant by Sul, er•vi' :;ur h .-t"" commen .I.iatINa ni ttbit•l ia, and asked the t1rievant to repeat the

'"" " r"lie CrLevant stated to Wilson, in Hanigorrga s presence, raire1 iar" No employees wt-re direct ly present, however, the

. Crir•v .int Statement was overhead b1 emp loyee Lynn hute :, ; sn, whot,-s;t i t ie<i at the• arhttr it ion hearing . Emersoni was workin r about

e'W'eint, . afl'belntJ .i anti Wr lson. k:u~er"Suu' f i .~lr1 the fir 1' "i' tL a% IIL/l i t- .

. te.<,tit ied that the ~;rie•v . iiit made the statement in a norm t I to,,,e r.< .t voice inei that he was nut sc reaming , waving his arms or acting

"e'sin an aht,ri;ive ut inner, and also testif Led that no other emple~~,

W i 1`110- :, .,# .A the ;,tat.etnerlt and that neither she not any

e1-11II stopped s irk-

'-tae Cr i ev.int all Wilson then proceed ed directly t. ., t tie :' .r r

*In at:eitrd .tnce with Wilson s earl Let, remark .!1 .• tiret .?

. t:lalil e I,tr .'.tint) tt7 The Toar cot It e, t tie t,rievlal . t i,eirl^v'e, .i

at cTP"1'i' i . .thet hat he n t Wi ist .a 1'1 ., tl . ne tome to -elect Ill . .i

IIttw<vt r, Wh.-ri they air I\,-•t, all the Tour uttice,,Wilson , •ynutzt .i

t .tl, i went tiltr^ . tl} to a desk ante began to wine s .0aliir it-. i_ .

. ut 1,1s altercat ion with tine l,,i leva rit, in .l taro .!rc<runta, .

"t i .tr" remark,; . It wa ;- Al {-grant to the ill I v,ant that Wl tautl

n ., llttvtO l On ut the 1 '"lrl'' matte[:., t)k.it LUS.t a' .t .i •. . .

'"writing tI'le i;rievaut ui, .

Th. 4 ;1 t ••vant tl ' ereul'r,n c( I:Et,lait,&d to Morris on that Wi Is, n held

teen 5 ls," it,,, a qam!•," that. Shoemaker had tecelved no not : 'e, ariar " tk .t he even knew t,t[oemrathat 1W r l ;r,n waS now denying tha .

Mor'ris .on did not discuss ; .he matter the Grievantt, and merely toll""" Atlas will be taken care of .the P'tF'",)orJt worryI i ,{ in :

mot rison Intended by that. state ment is not unders tandal:hle to tiled the

Athiti .ttor . Morxis,)n then went back to his work and i , nose

e:rievaliL .

The Grievar, t talped Sherman on the shoulder and risked tospeak to tier about the PTY sit-utatiol . Sherman ignored the

Grievant. .

at that F .oi nt in time , Mar ri son, Sherman and Walsc :ri',,laws ,

noring the GrIevant and were rebuffing his attempt toll I 'ga ted rrtf ll ay sicais speci,ut the P"rF matter . As1h cem aspeak to tthe Notice of Removal, neither Sherman nor Wilson would lea l•o rill

to tire Grievant .

The tetusal of the three supervisors to discuss the P : F

matter with him ,.lade the Gtievant angry and upset, and he stateuant whatC; i evrasked the"You"r- a shitheadt " Wilson

to trtlscrn, he had said, an`! Lire Grievant yelled. Sit. him, "You're a shitheail . . `

Go ahead, send file hnrne ." The (ii ievant It lien stated to no one inr roomT .ouparticcular, "tuck you all," and walked out of the

;tockton F',.rl ICY Gaverninl ,ervisor-Sho", ,teward

Coo ) nf rontat i on

a ckton shot , steward since September 1951I'•' r,~+yJim F,uIic• y at the Stockton otfice regtrdingtill .d ltnytit d reeiix

tis tro{rtat . io[LS urtween supervisors and shop stewards. Fayler

ernaJ M gah)yined to himof icy hail been explat theh ;ad tto .t-f,f 1"en ManniIla and also by Lou Surles . It

l ivocessingM.ci 1 Pr described the I of ii } as fog low" : First, there €{hould he no

should take`fconflicts rt :+t y kind on the flour . All argulnen .

ace of t t.s'#' t t oon 1 rn t he Tour superintend'ent's off ice . :,ecc :nd,lace " fur gettin, ; mad oi'thei p:,nt ut t acer i e Tour superanten i,• as a "no hog shi isaffac:e to

srlgry ." Manning described ~t'.e Tourtnat if a c'ont rontation starts oil t"b ir d" ,atiit lr r!"I lt1C. Iis or, the supervi so r . .n :d shop steward should immediately g >

the Tour superintendent 's office to carry on with it .

I•' ., `j l;' r W :L E: n, t .'[( : .>.s-exd. w t.neri regard1. tt the cn,nfrontit 1., Y,

es 1( an Ytte1 Man y witnesse Service cat,d 11 ,ih er ii1 ..) 1 . Iv,si,A,ccordingl ; , rite Arbi`ratiar f 'ir

test{ L 1rlyl. .ert 1 3yt„ r I ,It tl .~t 1"' ., '[ 1 . x' s Unt -.^ I,ilt r e' ~' ., nd I.t [Lretuted test . : mony cr tLc ' errL ar.g the

exists at thelic_ 'h .i };tr1d t hat t e l-t• .et ..d by F. .is rletit'1' toe ay

'rill' Pi,t . P1 't S .

.ft t he ,a.tt rtt .tt is r., b e ll ft ,'a t : ticte FIa{tt It' {a` :; Snr• p .Lr_F, 11Y C'; Ic-[,t i ; of i .ast c1 t :ec tF . l lne exist in t11e' . ~i[ Lev rLFLt ~ :, Oft

fi

l .e, 1 . :,onnel f i 1 .f . .

d $n to evidenf#e a written Set tle,aeilteee# e

The Arbitrator r A,lreenpflflt- Let.ween t tie-Service ant the trt IrR'htY 1

:C n }b( A= ls l1!'fi~e#ebt --aq$-82-X01177, tinted May 11, 1982 . t'htr

ust 18, ' 1 4811 warn rn.l' letter w r!s,e 1i 3.t. .!{,ec i t t a t t Now l led that tilt"ns ot Tl f «,1c

GIievan het„ be lemf*veil fr .ptn the e:e1 ficaun t le .utwit h al I tare evidence crf it bein~'i 1on than letter of war , .leg, $n tt. sd to cely upService has attemlre case in its July10, 1985 Step 3 decisi

on letter .

the Arbitrator also received i r,to evidence a _writhe Service and tyre Grievattt toe nt betweS,:"tt lemi it. A,Ireetiten 1984 . in that Set'.t ienrt lf

t' .ase 1. ., . 5-1 -1042-3, -dated Augus hdraw anl,

t`ilwitt ..a towiitttdrew t;l,:,4oA,Itea`me>nt, the c ;rlwant . agreed

i ai,d Nil. 5-1-031 9 01 . F .,rp

tl )

i-Eusirin cf June7-dalashya I NeSte

eti that a nil tha.k ,allrar3, ! he sere are

I .t3s , we 1 $parlien wouldwbetoi ng et'dA March ©S a wel

wash decision byclc,cumerats r^c~n ::ernrn4 the matter , art 4 e! pla,~cd inal'lai t rator k. } reed that theThe ,ervice also agtrusteeship i,y Louis surles

. eaarlier May 5, 1`.+82 EFrrr set tlement would be *execut, ed," in thatarlsve,lirom theGrhevld Y

ditree letter of w .,rniwi wou

,arentltheGeatc

.,t Iiciaal personnel tile . Al 1 xmentl' .er set:

C,,m1,lier.t w31t, that. earlie.t

Service attempted taa al',etAt. the arbi , rat inn heat I n7, race , overetr by tl,e1 as t,a and CV1 C

,r,t .1 tV tt%, ' t AI!•tt . , ~tt ,tui, t .,}

„,+'t.t l elberlt : e. Ieeillefit . Che At bit rat C~br retl

l.e ii toA. .r .#ust Ib, l'Jdd # 3 t,ett lemn the a r'oalndrr that the' e ( rdenl# .C .«.l v, . -,l:c h evi A•ir ertuit#ithad f rrla l i y d i spo ;,e!d f those emitter S . the At .ife :r rthat,

ree ,rrent spt A ;ttlemenruled that. II.e Se t„ l, e used only as ev i encem ,

matters c cxnCz, i neci t tlel el # ar of tt,~ parties aIlerirshi etwhich e

in hie e.lue.rtt ptuceecliny service contended that'

Y.M#eac:°tr cat the Settletlnerit Agany ubs The

i t w :as; i.ts intel .ti„n that anysutse ,lur .'t aY, usive a'tiora Y«'7

fle Sett lem e n t A~1reeH # eli i-af tw o. .

tar l e vaant we,'ri +i COOUSt. it rite a otireac ' h .

a al lowin•t tt,e Service to take , . i1 of the last elementsout of t .«t

at the ar,t, a .in diseih rsdtrar,i e*-ij Lf?eShip, rely ulon ti,.<-.m ion laearl .,bltratf,tYca them ir.t,r t4-a .lenL:P in arty ar

. trre',tritttwasaintendedpttoafinallydislx:etYaf

totj

metttrn ~e1eR

;'elt1er ,ne.nt. Ar, . .E I the pa t. Lenten! . : .

arat that tt,~ F,rni,,+"iev .ith the - rI't,e f,il =t# ar .=t a .taR=es w te' .

1ttatti

i i(,utes1 iii i tt,t Y e'tri<rht t tieetthelr ext st in~~ u between

th 1 A, t l r

. . . .,,lve .l .,ti of t,ie a1 ` aW

t", F, [:, ,i'i, 1:,y t. tit: .,x'1'1 1C e tCg a ld laf ~} t he 1982 warn oil ~at.

seaari

r

tie.cutt its flat I iej1 t discz{it14sukstrl,lr . .

t•,,ll, r rertu al t<~ !lace t~~e Yee!n a$+ .1ur

t ru •e :Y, i l . . A bre c . : . u,. the t,rievailtewiaui J. « ha bee A 3 .1 ewag~, w t t,e1 'l r 1 "Stowa. 1 . 1 ;, r 1 t• h rm t , i to subse , ittent rr: Yra .•t/i ,ta I ;'tl

r,,nn~,f Iii«, l t hfr r~, ,-,r r eCl to a j such, tv i, , rltende J a Y

.e a breac ! 'l, x t. waat t, e e

rnrtrl1tfl1 u1'till It tt, d~ .ltt 1anq,+aqe t.tr_evide :rc:C!e such i,tent . It

.real The Sett lpu ent A4iaeCWEUt is clear and ctr uisrtt,xniuriois

c,rz its face, and tote "breac :h ' language is •fortr " 1anti,uage that

must be ,li.vCf its orai.nary ateaning .

Even a : . .uri ing sump ambiguity in the Agreeulent,, it mu;t tie

rr, ;t.eai Cllat: t tie Alreerner,tt was drafted by the Servi .°p, area! any

a i.,ttiituit4 must ttterefurp be cons-trued against the St vice

. 1t

shaul,i also be ar. te:esf` intentionsrwasttthatYrof the trrievacrrt .

.l the 1Sut1lalrn(ilk] no to. Y

t .ie 1 i uference ithat thistestim any tire

tonut J supportnthe yServi Ce's

:ISSt.'.1 t ion .of tile August 16, 1914c11aso', U1,01" the unambaguiUS langria,l

:settle° eti Ayrrement , i s well as the.. C , ievant s unretyutted

tee_,tiinony concerningthe intent of the Agreement, and the fact

that t . ttp lanyua4e of tile Agreement wats `tr Agreement the ctivelyl 1emthe Arbit rat'..ir t i.nds that the

settUn an discipline ital,aaed

toreciose.l It .e Servic:e from relying upon y

ludami kismet 16, 1884 .cupon the Grievant uf, to and xn

1I 1 . SERVICE CONTEN'FIUNS .

1'ittst., there war: no testimony i ndicating discxaminatian fc.t

any vio,lritiar _ot the Grtevarrt ' s civil ri ;lhts .

rilz,d, t hi' evidence does not establish rremrnratllct has

t t.id e 1.7, Spit lons I and 3 ,f theNational Ag

f, ..ell 0-!,tanlistied t.itr<, u,II, a accountable than an aeml ,laoyeet In aqric,t held any lesnc> 1 I rt1t, , t. e,1 star. us. As 5u, h, the Grievant was account ble i o

tpw rd .

hi'; i .e'h, vir r f rrt,t as all elttlployee acrd secartcily as a

kitll„i,tiIt ttie Urtpva11t war, a stewa€

xd he neersvand

id, to-a-,611Wxlsc n's :. .r_

call WtlteS a liar iw scan justified in callingubardru,te, . Neither was the Yera,,upeiviaors in ti,e ^rour

Wrls,~n a shithead in" Lion,au all" to all tricot suervasors ..

k yor it, stating fuc

' Ian rte issue of justcause , ttie test imc :ry of all rwittresuC,ea aatibtied the j

e-tahl rshed that the dI SC i pi L.st the Step 3 deli Illee fur

:standard . First, Robertliannere (-':Iievarlt as ;

r[la naal elr .e rt t., test it cortcerni.ng hi S kni,wledge a€ the tle• Stockton otts . : e. t3atr ;set :, Slei i1 ,-

n etcl.,la}eee and steward at•r•1`,Ic'ct iett.ei 51 .eak s ttL: itself .

itiiIson"s testiuc.,ny estal,lished thatthe (1ieva, nt bet, lVeai i :i

a ll i.llli ru1 .¢~L' tic all„lrr .

T oll, sat i sf ied the list i°,+ 1 pI Nvest rgat ion of hath,r .-' i a.,:,e<a art tiat* .

t thattrrr. .,rievant en3 ,starlti .tr ;l and drrtruri .;tr,,led

i t he ctt ..r'4p .rriml .r ;,I,t r; 'ra•t.ivity alyplei i

L,rll,lop,•e €'mersurl also nui,f:-,jrted the f cvt3 curat_taue~i in tt

rt~•.t t,it' .

The Grie•vant 's own t rr.lt iirt,~uy! est'ahI fished that It e CL% ked

ivilsort a liar, a stiit .head aii .i that he stated , "Puck y .,u at I,"

Mr . Sur les was not ,--al le .t because of the d'illfi ill fy

eucount. ere t i in ca . I my a ihanagewente advocate at a he' d/ 3n

l,a t:tl,,: k i lat i, ' where do ad vicat e is i nvolved in the 1'fo ce edintls

prior to the arkratration hearirtmj .

IV . UNION CONTE NTION : ; .

The i,l'ievant is a chlet shop steward and has been act five ff''r

a lerl(std Lit time in cartyin(k out Union tanks . As a shot = stewars,.rrasenf:ativr_sreente :l.mtue Crtevdt,t functons as an equal to manag

'hlie Grievant teas n .) disclpltnat', re : rd . ins pex-,onnel file

is, cleats, and alt. matters have beeli- temoved from his recof:d

l .,.tl iu tnt to the F:Eo settlement .

-eiioie is no dispute as to how the problert, arose . Wit i.Ie

t ndt t( nin•; as a shop steward, the GrievantInvestigated the

mat ter r«• sit in<.tely and al:POI)i iately+. lie ,s dlefetie .i to

Wtlst)ti"s ,Ltelisents that SIld that f• tl'5 had been infurme,.k .

1•on+l' :, tes ;timuny vent led that. Wilson's statement wti ufltrUe.WiISun .la withhe timm;ue at ttl*Iwever, tkte i ;ri v .slut did not t,r

Where the ievafit it It,] Wilson later began to 111Scl.USS t

did nd)l stay d .14onil etipl'.nyees , ++.i t.: w +I'+ ed away t rain

t I,eW r i 'on .S te :;trinotiy req tr ;;iing the Gr Lev, .r .t s use t,.t the

wor,1 "i tar" is riot creditble, clearly , the Grl.evaiit only used the

word wtirtt Wilsuit asked the. Grievant whether he was c al lsiq ha .li a

liar . Also, Wilson' :; questioning or the Grievant in front (.f

kalui,.ll,jia constituted a clear provocation .

There was no di--ru{,tiun of any emi.lryee "s work on the

we i kf lour .

t'tie cc,iitext- of t,einyq a shop stew:, it, the Grievant w .'ISr v .a Iet her fit was

,inn re"sk , rildt r, l tCr Wll :iu i"1 :y tl i le ; ti:)n as to Wn

ect .d [id was : n, ( fi, iK.ii,•/ a P. ta!elnent o, di ai.eap

A! ter WiIs n and ttie f ;r ie%j arit returned to the ft ice,

(a 1, :. ~/ r i ( ierire ._: that W i l :7t,li there tetu .ied to talk t•.r

il Wi ist,n ~~laime i t ha t tie had take ;t hn t t .leven

;i.ie•t• . :rit tar [1," ilttl .'e t dearLii the 1 1' F matLer . w .

leisi ,iS Ill theiii,! M•>' I i s•rn 111 put !lief r lae . i• .

tI i .iext ;I fta- .i P• .-t. 1: [,e (rt l <-Vdl . (- .•- ._ [tie x l ^ evafi. t C e'i,,: d.me w. e'.}

. exdbk.:ei dt. rt,..

firllheL at. atr.1 . 1) 1 .°• .

The t,r lev, tfll -i st att eiprii is Its t tie 'L'out t ;I t I . a we$ e

" 1 ., u , . , • 1 e~seri he a! I i e- ta(- iI I•.'l .r t 1 1 - C r z r e,l

ttiere•t to be u-tisciptklitd t .=r` t: .Ci., .,e st,i

i ;l vas, `ise nn holds bat red prilicy and the retusa1l c> : all

t hrr e sul . , vis•,rs to deal with the matter at hand, disctpi t ae r

clearl} not. justified .

The Arbitrator should ,lso consider the fact that WA scan":' "estest y was a total 1,tud,cct of leading and baci •

@ t rr nhi MensonEven in the face of ret .eated adm,test i sno ny .tur concerning leading and suggestive testimony,th aAr ,

. continued t . ., ask leading questions. All of Wilsln ' s answers Were

"yes" or "no" answers in resporie to those leadingquest-tons.

varied ft1,mtestimon" yWIlsonMoreover, A,n cross-examination , shis direct testimony . Wilson admitted_askingi the Grievant, "Are

t °" : .°^quet logical that teayou cal l tnq) the s liar.," and it is mosoccurred as the Grievant testified .

The -service did not call many witnesses that w«ie in itsdid theher

capacity t .i call, such as Sherman or kambonga . beit

;,ervi..ce Cal I Any employee witnesses .

Time Service did tit dis,pute the stockton policy regarding

..hop stewaidi:, and even if the Arbitrator should find that the

C,rievant. ovecste[•ped that policy, the discipline imposed should

at most be redu, ..ed to a discussion penalty in light of the factthat the Gr :evant has no prior disciplinary record .

the Atbitratur should place in writinget ca-tai ,.ns nIn thethe finality of the EEU bettlemtetit finality , and order tile

ar°kingthe (/ P?' and., the "discipline t qf C, 6 iremove:,:,: :'CV i!',:' t. ( ;

s-yst pill" all evidence relating to the i mproperly imposed

d isc! i't tile .

V . Aitbl't'1<A :'OK'S CONCLUSION .

i concludes that the Service has failed to' tiat, ;The At li i,

erstaY.,li tt by clearand! convincing evidence that the Notice of

tceneov .il and unilaterallymodified 21-day suspension were issued

Theustained .the grievance is sfor to= t cause i ecording ly,tor .tollowing is the reasoriirig of t,,e Arbitra

pt eliminarily , the Arbitrator n, Ies- What ethsoluteli nt11 -_"df 1n linor t awould suph•otte d t h .e': idencee was l resen .

cation of Article 2 e) t tine National Agreement. A . . :Old inyl F,di sse .to drat extent, tile ,irievcnce is denied and dism

elimin :, ry matter , the Aibstrdt(~! l r<1 secantt I'te'CE w :l cs nu e~' . .Ye~ : re 1 rese .zt.ed . ti, .rt.. COUi,t Acid to a c .,nCl .ii . . fl

lycorais, .A (ed ,,. .that. Article 17, 'hectlc) fS I or 3 wet e violat

ssedmdi ..s it :,., that extent, the yriecance is denied and

cause issue, the tin t joint is that tuste-t" liirnis,l toi.'rise of fall on the tarts of Match b, is8S .

t,, , .r-v1 ;, use iri. to I t,yhr. iii thw Auy .~ :,t 1(a, i iii:4 EEO Settlr~rsent A•pre"^ment, tietaken ay, s :, :.ttct i, ,c

:','tvir' e C' .tr1i' .)t rai ; ul,t,n 13 ;,r dlscil;liid .

. t: hr. t ;, sev„satt . Nor t,,, ,.sea uf this case, ire l .a :,t diScil :linarY

I

i ttie Ari'ittat.c)r teelr c(impe'ilea I t x°+'u . .ier,tin tk,.it t i'' ,

t ti,tt: ---. tie is--acut e - -~ Ill- -s t urlie, -- by the se t vice's coat ittued r ellarWe -lrrdec t,reeruent :aitettlement agul un ni .ittets disposed of uy - tile s

3 decision letter , the Servi eiaRS Steplas shuwti t,y the .ki,l}' 1(1,~

a hass continued to rely upon the Aug list 18, 146' 4 let: t cr irI„

w .tr-nin , l, even t.hnugh that letter of warn ing was deleted t ri,nt tilen. . ryi , . - .. , i A. n r e eu n: e n t . A i x d

G t'. iev iilt S IEeuiU i .,y ---- -

w .tS 1 1 t e r " r`e- :itleted " try the Auyust16, 1484 Settle ,lleot

AgLee ; rieilt . It is Simply incomi 'rehenslt,le to the Ar'bitrat:or how

the ,etvice can continue to dr edge up and rely upon a warnlnel

1*itter that it has ex -ss,lyagreed would be remrxved from the

Gs"ievant' :i personnel i tie alunll with ,ill other evidence (t ttie

w :triiin,i . The Services (-on.tinued reliance uiw)n matters abit .,lated

.ti,'t put ged by settleii,elstt agreements renders itss entire case

s ; . . ;F .e( t: . Indeed, the bet vice s failure and refusal to tre It

n• .tt:ter, covered by theSettlement AgLeryeinents as finally re> ; . lved

i, .,th prit r to and at the atbitratit i n level, must be deet .eti' a

vviol : t lore (if the Grievalt 's basic rightt to fair treatment and clueNational F+ciLeeatcs .tt tiese 01under the lust. :.,use ',lou

.

The sei:itrttl point is that atall ties relevantt the Service

ly tai led Lo IC CUI l the Gtievunt treatment Ue.C trim with n.

tl'. :; st +The evidence est alit r e,ie-ct

i.is as a 'in ion I eliresertat ive .

hit tota l lr i <y ,iored the Grievaht's proterted aidServ . i~e`tlm as a union steward .ingloyee actpr ivileiled status as al .

emp war I's protected status l al been dthe r,uk ject of , WIt

. dr.t .3i l t,y a Tat . srS . Che ialties ere referred to

,.

i, x: c,iri.k, iiH .6' I7 of t he bNA Labor Arbitration cumailat Ive

itled Insubordination Union,jr'j entt . anti

Index, iaepresr.}}tat1ves:t

itagardi. ng rhe sfseri f i, C sub .ject of " personal abilsivenes :s

toward a su1iCCViso! ," atbit r ;et ors o-nerally hold that durinai a„y

clci•,ed discussion Ii where no eir.ployeet; are present ;, the'suspended, and arar il yhip is tempoenployer- emi-lo,ee relations

st eward iic>sses_'e5 a special immunity . The parties meet. 08

e ..iu<al',, ai .J the steward i s entitled to the same deter •uce al-.d'

tat [tucfe air; his suieLr . vie steward i : . permitted t,, disc , s

union 1 : ; as though ne were not an enii loyee . He may dl play',

a lei+frt• I .e`il tetl , i,er, L,aisC his Voice , acid even u . e prutaltit,',

thc. .u,i,h such i''rofanity would otherwise be deemed to Leth when a union matter is'bothe rule

F .erz,c,n,iI Iy abusive . S11,11 I-- ;- . . . zI r,', nt factual or ,evanc - mee t II . ';

t,elny ol :, Ui J ..durin a u.ar n Ur,e c 1!z

i SCii YLit imaF if ytI ~ iel n gwn.epn 11 }.a 1.'.d Hu pervl .;orv on ly where

l tsolwl weel1 l :i" bt ewd ril .i R

eet 11+: , t ,1 1 is 1, [I 1 s gilt c laced, ilt t S +)t+Ser Vak : e nr c?P+-CI'

etnp,i W;'ae . ;, it • ..s Ilie te+,ix A l .i a total Ilnmu .I ity . A t.tsward W :.!i1'.

f rt,rit ()t other a iitp i etS 1 .`i

1ii.[ef`t ' ; 1 }' ,11 a ., . .. -----

11(it Ire-lei !' iitt. '°n, i t t.n,1 tee Eit+ ~ ntat Cl el,~i}l Uyer-un ion [-al ity, tie n :y

stilt Is°+ ,it ' ins 4 i: er v 1thi .ee i i t t e:iI t eG.(, 1I '•'{ I . . e•lt,i,le Greet fir

.

ver him at the er'1enc;e ut'` ioxYty ( fiefan a rl,ri ei,/ „i r ; . t e •'. e s ju

° iUi Ni l'.W 1GC.)i ., - t•itris afl,i Iepttl.atlCan .

11

,r, ew .srtl als,'x loses eci :,$I immunity stature when' liec with the emptayer s ability

engactrs en c:oitdu .:t which ir,t . er'fereft

tc. oterntC, or iS Intend ed to irrtertere with that right or

ability . Thus, isruptive cc,nductonthe workflnor i.s totally

c,rrtwi,.le tt,,- collective haryaini : ty relationship and is thetet c r*'

ttrilcotet t.ed . 5tuilarly, threats of harmor assaults are never

t,rotected activit ies, whether or not. accompanied by protanity .

'the Set vi cc's t,wn policy at the Stockton office generally

conforms to the aforestated general principles . Under the facts

of this case, the Service ignored troth the general ptinciples and

i ts, well -established policy .

The first t of nt at which the Service ignored the lit ievant "s

protected status was when W lsc „+ became angry and upset with the

CIievant for cluestiontny his word , and asked the Grievant wt,etherBy so doing, Wilson ignored theliar .Wilson ahe war; .all,in .4

eiriev .irtt"s protectedstatus, removed his attention from the PIT

ievant into responding to a loadedGh revoked tissue, and pro question . When the Grievant res€,onded a€finnatively , Wilson,

d the supetvisui -shop stewardd elly suspentotally and fina relationship and thereatt. er treated the discussion as strictly a

supervisur -employee matter .

Even had Wiiscon not provoked the."liar ' affirmation, the

Gr ie_v,rnt"s statement would have to be constured as pioueeled,

b-cau :se no eirq,lo}ee wer` e present, the statement,

di.srttt :t ion of the work fotce, and the Grievant neither threatened

r,c,r ',S : *u t ted w i. l ,on .

Grrevunt made the "liar " statement , Wilsonhen a :; t. . s

.rcr itrirnedi:,tely lc, oked for a supervisor that he could use ari

w1t.rtess . Wil : .n was apparently treatintg the mattef in the sc1me

way tl:at he might treat an insubordination incident , that is bythe employee receive and dis,oue ; _

ih ngavur andgett. r n,# a Super vi s a direct order in tront of a second su,l:,ervis©r .

lt,:rwever, what. Wilson did mikes no sense ajt a 1 . fit in f avitr`ssiaaliol; stewal r 1' a statement un :orovoked c.r

e srtpervisoc was iti ,rolve:I, theunp otected s'Finther, star itt~i

tc .d to t 1Ior,tate.rcier+t c' c;tttittue

The second way rn which the Servr a disrec; irded the

tCr'ie ,ut"s prote_cte,t status w.is to completely ignore trim in the

'Jour stiperintetitent's ctfic . The Grie . ac'tt came to the To .,r

,ecific• Union mutter , a matters lac.,ttice wi. tre Wi1.r;,in disc:iis .

.~ cotttl let.ely i.gncn red iby al let tie was':le .rt ly wit.h n his domain ; ~,

. three sul:.ci~isot . N,,ne of the three supervisors felt mat theyt .

owed . rrt'{ exl,,lunation to the ~.rievan

K :tile the wiitter nharge against the Criev •inttied that t x,ey have C' ' e not iat s te . .P`rFt t t :e tt Ler~ i :, no yrjuiIetL

. woth, ttiere was al):>c)l utely r, o evidence t h<,E the fir ieva nC was

1 .

a ;t I' l anati„1: at the time he Wa Art emi t mri^ i t(.d

t esot ve t ite teat r: r . Furt her , the evi ;lenc e es.t ahl inhe,d t aut, t -ie

i. was an estai,, istued custoan and pract ice is t' t .q i,l

t.orktt,nuttit"e . 'l't,eevidetu' e further estabiisherd tt ,nt. 0r

and ,0hermati bolt, initially t• .Id the Grievant that the nt,t r_e h,,cd

been t1 ivei n, when iii t act at' . ) tit 5©% of the l1"F "'s hail licit been

notified, it. is ohviotu ; to the Arbitrator ttist ail tt,tae;•e ' . .,ai rant to tae a nu

s;Uj•er:vI stir 5 :,i,Lq ly c .oro ; iAetect the Grievan tieatedhim as s,i .h by totally sy noring him .

'I'll- neat irni,r,rtant l,oint is that !l .e C,rdev .i i .t `t> . tneiry

nltthurst at tl,e three supervisolA was made 1n a closed

i'cnidxtioil ; that is, no eml : ayees witnessed it . it ni .rkes no

t.idt teience that the G rievant addressed three supervisors, r .tther

than only one . tiecause all three were :., upervisors , his status

xematned protected .

be pint) hasi.aea too strongly that tt.et

t cannot'ier, iFtrrCi. t.riev .il~t`s statrmr•irt.', in tie 1 at oft--

ice were not ur .pr'.uvoked ;tration t .,f rusmade inortbursts, but tather were statements

a l l y igrior in,J him at the time fiC Waefe tuti t„ ww

. attrs~,i,tin,l to discuss a legitimate tlraion concern . 'd'nc e•vtcden~•e ..

k ri-mi}~ ewtahl ished that as st .on as Wilson went itito tt,e Till:y his onl f' CI.uc.rtl".art t,,t :ifl i&'e, Iie rcir' .r.rr i t.tie / :r levant, s Com..flain

could rn ;tituteh esit thatwas writ wn^r ul the '1 rat'" iri,cident, t t rrn i ,t C#" atinst t t,e c ;rieval,t . And that was me ,cc•l ine I

ei.gty wit

aie^t uther twosuler s vxst,i wuu+td.irlit Furlthere,t tiw tileutith- ri"r

e

w .idtr tp~te is. :;ue .

di an alternation did occur between t ..il tit, p,asun n~aX y,n Marah 6, 198 ', ( 1) it was Wilsun ratitetl ,e,unwic ;rievar ;t :

ic, w c responsible fc :r tl'., alt.et.cat.i . n, and ..t w t t 't Ii .trr the I,r tevati

21 ° :t. .,teufnt.s made by rite crxevant'were hi ti iris 6=t ,atert.ecr

ity a', a s tr _c, , ste wa r,i . Acucir(i tn,.{l y, rile just:. cause 1aoi tt1 .?n

t,t the orievar. a is sustained .

4 AWARD

'st eauss 'e to issue the N.O1uThe ;ervico did not have 7removal, nr r did it have j ust cause text ente the gs ievancel isth 0ainvoked 21-day suspension . To tsustained .

The Crievant shall be immediately reimbursed all wa ges <<rtn

i-enefits lost because of the suspension ..

The service shall immediately "remove from all 4,f i ts files,

including but riot limsted to the Grievant 's OPF, and al .,,,

including but riot limited to the services discipline tracking

system , the, Notice of Removal and. Suspension Letter, tog

wi0i all evidence and writings concerning the Notice of Removaland Suspension . The Service may retain a copy of this Opinion

and Award , provided it is riot retaine = i in the tiievant 's ofticia':ln file.lr iJ'ersc~nnel file or ally drscipisue tracc q

rd sward nar--any discipline previGus1aNeither t his Uj .tnsan w ,, ttie' Service tot mlN .~ :,ed upon the Gr t evarst shall be cap a )nfl thedUs : ievant. Neitherl lne 1,,impos1n(3 arty subsequent dt :,t'N

snail this Urainianre•vianti ou lt i niposted d sriplinefbeeottered in"ausfaensit)n nor arty s y r tactedIng

evtrle•n :e by the :service in di)y subsequent disciplinary, l

invatvsny the urievant. .

(DATED this 2 .__._da1, of January . 198

Tnomas F . Levak , Arbitrator .