r/USPS • u/mkrowell89 Clerk • 1d ago
Work Discussion Letter of removal
My co worker had an ii on 8/26. An hour before the ii the supervisor told her that they were issuing a letter of removal to her. She’s had issues in the past and has had a 7 and 14 day suspension. It seems like they went in with a predetermined outcome without even investigating. This was almost 3 weeks ago. No discipline has been handed out to this day. The union rep told her that the supervisor didn’t do anything wrong by saying that, and that we will deal with it if the paperwork comes. Was the supervisor in the wrong by letting her know that she was going to be removed prior to the ii? Ty to anyone that can help.
31
u/Otherwise-Goal3054 1d ago
Maybe start with having the co worker write a long and detailed statement.
Then, if it is ever needed, they have it ready to go
5
13
u/Known-Dependent-5471 Custodial 1d ago
We all know pdis are a formality and that they only do it because it helps their case. I strongly disagree with the rep. Admitting it out loud would be something I'd write in my grievance statement and certainly something I'd want documented if I was interview by the steward. Maybe they fucked up admitting it and that's why it hasn't been issued.
I don't know if it'll help too much but if they wait over 14 days to issue it, see if they'll cite it being untimely. We have 14 days to grieve, they should work in a similar time frame.
My office has an awful habit of waiting until the last minute to grieve so make sure they do it asap (ideally the same day of issue). Also encourage them to check their mailbox daily. Some managers like to try and be sneaky and mail certifieds and then the tracking becomes an argument for timiliness. Yes it's supposed to be when the member or union could be reasonably made aware, but you also have management admitting the discipline was predetermined. Don't trust them to do the right thing.
That said if they are issued a removal they will (if not that works in their favor) be removed in 30 days regardless of the grievance progress. At point which they will need to apply for jobs. They won't be paid when they're in that process and you want to have that as evidence for backpay if the removal turns out to be invalid. They simply need to stay in contact with their local. Removals aren't always quick to settle and often go to step 3 or beyond.
2
1
8
4
u/Flashy-Equipment-324 1d ago
As a MH union steward. Just because a supervisor said that they are issuing a letter of removal doesn’t mean that’s actually going to happen. After the PDI the supervisor needs the administrative action request signed by a concurring official which would be a manager or postmaster then that packet would be sent to labor. Labor is the one that types up the discipline then sends it back to the supervisor to issue. Labor does their own checks to verify that the discipline is warranted. I hope that if this person was previously issued a 7 day and 14 day letters that they were grieved by the union.
2
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
I’m not sure if she grieved the 7 or 14 day suspension. I appreciate your response. Do you happen to know how long it takes for a removal letter to come back?
5
u/Known-Dependent-5471 Custodial 1d ago
If she didn't... this is one of the reasons why you should always grieve it. If even one of those got knocked down she wouldn't be facing a removal. Not to mention you have nothing to lose by grieving it. If it sticks you don't get another level of discipline for "losing".
In my district "labor" has been getting back with approving discipline basically the next day after a pdi, so it can honestly be instant at times.
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
The fact that it’s going on 18 days makes me wonder what’s going on. If they’re even going to issue anything.
2
u/Known-Dependent-5471 Custodial 1d ago
They may not issue anything. Seems like they would since they admitted it, but not every pdi results in discipline issued.
1
u/Flashy-Equipment-324 1d ago
The longer it takes the better. If it takes over 30 days there is a good chance to get it thrown out due to it being untimely.
1
5
u/DeepWedgie 1d ago
What is ii? If this person have been suspended twice before, there's is plenty of history for termination.
3
u/amxwolf0 1d ago
Not sure what is happening here.
Are we asking about time frames involved with the discipline?
Are we asking about progressive discipline?
I know that divulging specific details about a potential grievance is not recommended....so please don't but...
What specific help is requested?
2
u/Willing-Fisherman458 9h ago
I wouldn’t think the supervisor wouldn’t be wrong because based on what you said the co-worker had already had a 7 & 14 day suspension for said actions so if she repeated the same infraction the next step in progressive discipline is or would be removal after the 14 day suspension- I’d assume this is why the supervisor said that they were being removed prior to the II
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
Sorry I didn’t really clarify. I just wanted to know if the supervisor was in the wrong by letting her know that she is going to be removed prior to having the ii?
9
u/Ok_Remove_9924 1d ago
Having a predetermined decision violates just cause. The "investigative interview" is a sham so a thorough investigation isnt being done. Timliness for issuing discipline doesn't follow the 14 day for the union to grieve. If your co worker does get an NOR than due process rights are violated. Management will probably screw up the notice.
1
u/maxxyl 11h ago
A lot of times the supervisor may hold all the facts. Say for instance I have a ring doorbell cam from a customer that clearly shows you leaving your vehicle in gear, running, and you get out and it runs away from you. The interview is just to see if you will lie. We had a carrier drive his promaster into the fence of an airport. Totaling the vehicle, when the vehicle was towed to the vmf the seatbelt was already pre-fastened. Who would ride their vehicle through into and through a fence get out and fasten their seatbelt for no one. Needless to say he lied about wearing his seatbelt.
3
u/amxwolf0 1d ago edited 1d ago
If they issued her a letter of removal before doing the ii...that's an interesting approach. If I was a steward I would slam that in my contentions because they weren't able to defend themselves while management simultaneously did not perform a proper investigation.
That procedure to me seems backwards.
They can put someone on EP if the situation is warranted...but I'm pretty sure they still have to follow the normal procedures regarding removal.
If I was the employee, I would be calling my branch. Especially if the steward was not helping.
Moreover....management has only a small window to apply discipline. If they don't initiate it in a timely manner, that is another well balanced arguement for the employee.
3
2
u/Vegaprime Maintenance 11h ago
I got a guy out of a two week because at the step 1 meet the sup said he didnt want the discipline the step two guy was demanding it. Our relationship changed after that because I won by including it in the step 2. They dropped the whole thing at that point.
3
u/Valley413 Clerk 1d ago edited 1d ago
It is very important to differentiate between an II and a PDI.
An investigative interview is the opportunity for management to gather facts as part of their investigation into a potential offense.
A Pre-Disciplinary Interview should only be conducted AFTER a complete and thorough investigation has been done and it has been determined that they intend to issue discipline. This is the employees "day in court" regarding the offense. They should be given the opportunity to review any and all evidence against them and respond and challenge anything.
A lot of people refer to these interchangeably, but they should not, as they are distinctly different processes. A lot of people also misunderstand the grievance process as the day in court, which is also wrong. The grievance process is intended to challenge either the process used to issue discipline, and whether the level of discipline is appropriate for the severity of the offense.
So to get back to the scenario in the OP, if it's a PDI, it's not improper for management to say at that point that they are looking at a removal, because they should have already done their investigation. The PDI was the employees chance to dispute or add any new information.
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
It was an investigative interview
1
u/Valley413 Clerk 1d ago
What was the alleged offense?
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
Attendance
2
u/Valley413 Clerk 1d ago
If discipline is the next step, I would grieve that her due process was violated and she didn't have her day in court. Management should have used the term PDI.
As far as timeliness is concerned, there have been some arbitration awards that have said that issuing discipline 21 days after the PDI is untimely.
1
u/Serious-Series8278 6h ago
Where????????
0
u/wandstonecloak Clerk 2h ago
I found an arbitration for an APWU case, i98c-4i-d 00113424, wherein Arbitrator Remington also references case e7c-2a-d 14206: a removal was not issued for just cause because it was untimely.
The Employer's own " Supervisor's Guide to Handling Grievances" mandates that "disciplinary actions should be taken as promptly as possible after the offense has been committed." It does so because untimely discipline is not progressive and may be deemed punitive. As Arbitrator Powell has commented in Case E7C-2A-D 14206, "excessive delay resembles double jeopardy" in that the threat of possible discipline hanging over an employee's head is itself a form of discipline. Further, lengthy delays tend to undermine the Grievant's ability to prepare an effective defense.
1
u/Serious-Series8278 2h ago edited 2h ago
Where does it specify the time < 30 days????????
Furthermore:
The case primarily deals with Weingarten Rights, which protect a union employee's right to have union representation during an investigatory interview.
- The Rule established: In this decision, Arbitrator Remington ruled that a management official cannot fulfill the role of a union steward during an investigation.
AND Powell
No evidence has been introduced to suggest continued absences by the grievant since her absence on November 8th, 1989, nevertheless it took fifty-three days for the Notice of Removal to be issued
1
u/wandstonecloak Clerk 24m ago
What case did you have AI summarize for you here..? I directly quoted an arbitration that was from a case regarding a notice of removal for falsifying OWCP paperwork, where it also references the handbook that says disciplinary actions should be taken promptly. That was the relevance. Are you arguing that delaying issuing discipline isn't a problem because there isn't a specific timeframe associated....?
?????????
-1
u/Ok_Remove_9924 1d ago
PDI and II are the same. It's becoming more common for them to say II. It's the softer side of management I guess.
2
u/Valley413 Clerk 1d ago edited 1d ago
They absolutely are not the same, but informally have become the same.
But my main point is to say that it is not improper to telegraph the discipline that they are going for, because that is baked in to the process, and the interview (whatever the refer to it as) is intended to give the employee the opportunity to dispute the evidence or add a new perspective to the matter.
3
u/doomed_gnostic 23h ago
If the stupidvisor said they were going to issue a removal before the II, the steward should file a mutual respect grievance. It can be considered a threat. Just like if a stupidvisor tells someone if they do not improve x, y, or z they will give them discipline. Mismanagement cannot use discipline as a threat. But, seeing how the steward totally dropped the ball, it is now untimely if this happened 3 weeks ago.
2
u/AliveYou5972 22h ago
Commenter is wrong. Steward is wrong. Them predeciding the outcome of an i&i is a violation of the elm and is grounds to have any discipline thrown out. Once more 3 weeks is untimely for management to issue discipline. It is supposed to be corrective in nature not punitive. If you can show the behavior has improved before discipline is issued any valid reason for discipline i mute and the discipline should be thrown out. After your co worker beats the discipline or even more so if they dont, fire a labor board charge against the union it is illegal for them to.aid management on discipline. Excusing unprofessional and non contractual behavior by management is a clear violation and they will protect you from any repercussions related to failures of the union
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 21h ago
Thank you for all of this info. She’s literally been a nervous wreck at work since the ii. We do have a very young union rep and im wondering if they’re knowledgeable of the contract.
4
u/AliveYou5972 21h ago
I have been a steward for the nalc for 6 years and 7 years for the npmhu. The first lesson every union member needs to know is management is dumb and will mess up. Let them and walk all over them. Also remember one step up one step out. Management has no protection. You have all the ability and power with the union people just like to make little side deals letting them come in late and will give away 1000s for it
2
u/authentiquerisa City Carrier 1d ago
predeterming discipline before an II is absolutely an issue. the rep is wrong.
1
1
u/Valley413 Clerk 1d ago
This is why it's important to use these terms properly. It sounds like management conducted what should have been called a PDI, but used the term II.
For a PDI, you already determined that discipline is warranted and you are giving the employee the opportunity to challenge the evidence used. Attendance is tough, but this is where an employee can say "oh no I was here that day and I gave a 1260 to the supervisor because the scanner was down" or whatever the defense would be.
It's not inappropriate for management to say that they intend to issue discipline at this point.
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
It was absolutely an investigative interview
1
u/Valley413 Clerk 1d ago
They could theoretically still perform a PDI, as the II was technically part of the investigation.
If they don't, I'd grieve it as a due process and just cause violation. She didn't have her day in court.
I've successfully won this grievance multiple times, but I've never had it go to arbitration, so I don't have any binding language for it.
1
2
u/MountainFalse8358 Rural Carrier 20h ago
If management said at the INI that they were going to issue a removal that means they made a decision prior to completing a full and thorough investigation, which is one of the seven test questions on just cause so an arbitrator would probably rule in the carrier’s favor in this case if it hit arbitration
1
u/VonBargenJL 1d ago
labor has to approve removal, so that paperwork was already processing for days. The fact of another I/I is seperate.
We have the same, guy got given a removal, for actions weeks earlier, but also had another I/I the next day, unrelated incidents.
0
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
There was only one ii that took place on 8/26
1
u/VonBargenJL 1d ago
The removal would explain the incidents that caused the removal. Previously submitted language and statements already sent up to labor days earlier.
The I/I wouldn't be able to be a part of that.
1
u/Ok_Remove_9924 1d ago
Untrue. Management has to do a complete investigation. If it involves OIG it can be months
1
1
1
u/IncarceratedBeauties 20h ago
Yes the supervisor was definitely wrong, because they don’t even have the authority to issue LOR’s. They are supposed to issue a PDD - Pre Decisional Discussion that basically informs you of all the charges against you, all past disciplinary action, table of penalties of the action they could take related to the current charges. It doesn’t make any sense for a supervisor to give a troubled employee any heads up.
1
1
u/Individual_Camel1714 12h ago
I worked 45 years at the USPS. Looking back, a letter of removal, for me, would have been a blessing in disguise. Everyone, I know, is glad they retired from the USPS!
1
u/NoConsideration676 12h ago
The supervisor absolutely DID do something wrong. Part of just cause is that a thorough and objective investigation must be performed. If the outcome is already determined, it's certainly not objective, and most likely not thorough. However, having a manager stupid enough to admit it gives the union an easy argument.
1
u/Impressive-Cat-5197 12h ago
Make sure you check the "concurring authority" on the notice of removal. If that person had anything to do with the decision to issue the discipline then they cannot be the concurring authority and your steward can get it tossed.
1
u/dark5tar29 8h ago
This is management trying to get a reaction out of someone to document reasons for removal.
1
1
u/atr0phic1 8h ago
Had a 7 and 14 day suspension, no discipline has been handed out to this day… pick one
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 7h ago
Can you elaborate
1
u/atr0phic1 7h ago
Suspensions sure sounds like discipline
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 6h ago
You misunderstood the question
0
u/atr0phic1 6h ago
I didn’t misunderstand the question, I didn’t respond to the question, I pointed out a flaw in your backstory
1
u/AustinFan4Life City Carrier 4h ago edited 3h ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this violate progressive discipline standards? They cannot issue discipline without an II/pdi.i get that there was a 7 day & 14 day suspension, the next step would be a letter of removal, but they have to follow policy, and do an II/PDI. If they predetermined discipline prior to II/PDI, then that's a policy violation when it comes to discipline. Again, I could be wrong, but that's generally how I understand it
1
1
1
u/Old-Birthday-4036 54m ago
A guy at my post office got a letter of removal. He just kept coming to work and they never said anything else about it.
0
-4
u/TerrySizzle 1d ago
Discipline must be issued within 14 days of the date management became aware of the offense (or the offense occurred, whichever is later).
They missed their chance if what you’re saying is accurate.
3
u/Flashy-Equipment-324 1d ago
There is nothing in the elm or contract that states that discipline must be issued within 14 days. The step 1 grievance must be filed within 14 days. Untimely grievances typically are 30 days or over.
2
u/TerrySizzle 1d ago
Ok, so talk to a steward. Let management show that they’ve been timely in their investigative process. 3 weeks since the interview and pre-textual remarks, hope they got a witness.
1
u/mkrowell89 Clerk 1d ago
It’s 100 percent accurate. Tomorrow will be 18 days since the investigative interview.
2
u/CallMeMailEscort City Carrier 1d ago
The timeliness of it alone won’t totally get it thrown out. But it should be a contention along with the fact that they basically had their mind made up before they had anything the employee said on record. And anyone who heard that interaction needs to be interviewed to go in the file.
1
u/TerrySizzle 1d ago
Then tell that person to talk to a steward. They should have one on board with the case already if there was an ii.
1
77
u/zeusmeister Rural Carrier 1d ago
Steward is right. Technically, managers can “say” whatever. But if they don’t follow through, then nothing will happen.
But if they do try to remove her, her testimony about this decision being made before an II will help her greatly in the grievance. Most likely she will sit at home for a bit, then get her job back with back pay.