MSPB Zero Tolerance
Abusive Supervisor Reinstated By MSPB NEWS ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY by Martin Johns
The Merit Systems Protection Board has reinstated a supervisor whose removal was ordered by an Arbitrator and upheld by the courts for violation of the Joint Statement on Violence in the Workplace. In a ruling issued September 30, the Board held that, since the supervisor was not a party to the Arbitration, he was not bound by the decision. The MSPB did not seem bothered by the obvious contradiction inherent in this conclusion, in that the Postal Service was a party to the Arbitration and, using the MSPB logic, the Postal Service was bound by the decision. NALC President William Young expressed anger at the decision, saying, "It is a sad day for the Postal Service."
Young was quick to tell advocates that arbitrators still retain broad rights to fashion a remedy for management violations of the Joint Statement, including "reassignment, a prohibition against the individual supervising letter carriers, and prohibiting the supervisor from receiving future promotions or performance-based bonuses." Additionally, the Union will continue to seek "appropriate disciplinary action," though removals and suspensions over 14 days will remain subject to MSPB review.
The Joint Statement agreement was entered into in 1992, following the Royal Oak Massacre. The APWU was the lone Postal Union not to sign on to the document, believing its enforcement would be entirely one sided. Though they were not a party to the agreement, Arbitrators have universally held that APWU members are bound by its terms. Are you sensing a certain hypocrisy, here?
In 1998, Clinton, Maryland Postmaster Derek Hatten initiated an altercation with a letter carrier. The Union grieved the incident pursuant to the Joint Statement. The Arbitrator, Raymond L. Britton, ruled that Hatten “engaged in a course of conduct … that was directly inconsistent with and in violation of the … Joint Statement” and sustained the grievance, ordering Hatten's removal.
The Postal Service went to court to vacate the award. Though the court upheld the award, they did advise the Service that Hatten could appeal to the MSPB.
The MSPB also refused to hear from the NALC in the matter, though they had filed to intervene. The Board noted that it has no obligation to allow a party to intervene, regardless of the effects of their ruling on that party.
Meanwhile, a Union official was fired for reading a book on his break, not because of the content of that book but because of its title (Al Ainsworth's Going Postal, a collection of stories about abusive management). At last report, that Union official is still out of work, almost 2 years later (note: Hatten was not removed until April 2003). Hypocrisy? Yes. Justice? No.
Hypocrisy? In a recent arbitration here at Red Bank (admittedly my grievance), the Arbitrator agreed that the Union was prevented from proving its case by an unreasonable denial of information. He agreed the Union was entitled to draw an adverse inference that the information, if provided, would have proven the Union's case. However, he went on to rule that the Union had not proven its case and was therefore not entitled to remedy. This was a transparent thwarting of the Collective Bargaining process. Clearly, the Arbitrator feared a cash award would draw the wrath of Postal management and might cost him his cushy job. Justice? In a pig's eye!
MSPB Decision
NALC President Young's Response
THE ARBITRATION AWARD
More from PostalReporter.com
Wanted: Freedom From Workplace Bullying News Analysis by Martin Johns
October 18-24, 2003 was "Freedom from Bullies in the Workplace Week". The Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute recently released the results of their latest research on the subject. I have attempted to distill some of the information on the Institute's web site. All quotes and statistics in this article are from the Institute web site, unless otherwise stated.
When I began my Postal Service career, in 1985, I quickly started to wonder, "Don't these people realize that contented workers are far more productive workers?" Be good to your people and they'll be good to you. It took me years to realize the obvious truth...they simply do not care. Even those "right-minded" managers--those with a conscience and a soul--avert their eyes and remain silent in the face of the most egregious harassment. This is how and why atrocities happen.
Of late, the hostility of the USPS work environment has only grown worse. A cancer patient in Ohio was subjected to the most disgraceful behavior imaginable by his supervisors. His doctor required that he have water "by his side at all times." "It doesn't say I have to let you drink it," was the supervisor's response (PostalWatch.org). At a recent Arbitration in New England, management openly declared, "We fire people with cancer BECAUSE WE CAN!" (related by participant). What kind of twisted people could even think like this? Postal managers.
The Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace, signed by the Postal Service and most of the Postal unions after the Royal Oak massacre in 1991, promises that there will be "no tolerance" of violence, abuse, threats, harassment, intimidation, or bullying in the workplace. But enforcement has been entirely one-sided. Employees have been disciplined, even removed, for foul language or shouting. Managers, guilty of crimes as heinous as rape, are merely reassigned. Some have actually been promoted. (Going Postal...The Tip of the Iceberg by Al Ainsworth, Chewah Publishing).
In 2000, the USPS spent $4 million funding the infamous Califano Report. Rather than look at the root cause of the problem (abusive managers), the Report's focus was preventing abused employees from becoming violent. The Report's conclusion? Pay higher salaries to managers. This represents organizational consistency. The culture of the Postal Service doesn't hold abusive managers accountable. It rewards them.
Better than 1 in 3 USPS craft employees will be a victim of abuse or bullying during their career. This is higher than the national average. Most will never report it. Many will either be fired or will resign.
According to the Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute, "Targets are predominately 40-ish, educated and veteran employees." 80% of targets are women; 20% are men. About two-thirds of all workplace bullying is same-sex harassment. Thus, targets are frequently denied protection under existing laws.
Male bullies tend to target employees who are naturally independent and refuse to be controlled. Female bullies generally target employees they perceive as more competent and/or better liked than they are. In more than half of all reported cases, victims report that their tormentors are bullies by nature--that their personalities are abusive and they have a need to demean or destroy someone.
Only 23% of workplace bullies act alone. Female bullies tend to recruit the target's peers while male bullies most often enlist other managers for "tag team" bullying.
"Public Screaming" is a tactic employed by roughly two-thirds of all bullies. Better than half will retaliate if a complaint is made. (A 2001 study found retaliation rates to be close to 66%). Slightly less than half will threaten the target's job. About 20% will threaten physical harm (or assign the target to unsafe work). Female bullies favor the "silent treatment" and the turning of co-workers.
"Targets cannot be called thin-skinned. They stay for a long time working under conditions rational people would consider intolerable." The bullying usually only stops with job loss. More targets will be fired than will quit.
In contrast, bullies are almost never dealt with by employers. Less than 1 in 10 will receive any type of reprimand. Even then, "correction" is generally a slap on the wrist issued with a wink and a nod. "Bullying is done with impunity. Perpetrators face a low risk of being held accountable."
Witnesses will often make the mistake of blaming the victims for their fate. This is known as "Fundamental Attribution Error." Generally, an "outsider" will choose this perception as an alternative to taking responsibility for their role in the abuse--their silence. Some witnesses will side with management because of their desire, conscious or unconscious, to be on "the winning side." Others fear becoming targets themselves.
No target of workplace bullying escapes damage to their physical and/or mental health for long. The most common illnesses experienced by bullying victims are anxiety disorders, clinical depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. 35% of targets will suffer Chronic Fatigue.
In spite of the "not-so-impartial pro-employer" Workers' Compensation Office tendency to deny stress related claims, research shows that the vast majority of health effects suffered by targets are the direct result of the workplace bullying.
In the early nineties, the cost of workplace bullying to the US economy was estimated at $6 billion a year. A RAND Corporation study estimated the cost might be as high as $44 billion a year. Truthfully, there is no way to accurately estimate the total cost. Employers suffer decreases in employee performance and productivity, and an increase in absenteeism. As always, they will blame the employees for these losses.
So what can you do? Well, starting small, you can sign the petition at The Association of US Postal Workers. Education is key, so start reading some of the material on the links below. As a victim, you can confront your bully; refuse to be demeaned. File a 1767. Keep good notes on all the bully's tactics and incidents (the Red Bank Local has created Abusive Supervisor Incident forms; stop by the office and pick some up). As a witness, stand up and support your co-workers. As a steward, file those grievances and EEOs. Include Bullying Studies, and anything else you can think of, in your grievance file. We'll probably all die of old age before the "employer" does anything constructive.
Personally, I hope for the day when all employees will drop what they are doing and just stare at the bully in the act of attacking their co-worker until he/she stops and slinks away in shame. (No respect? No production!) Until that day, management will do what they do "because they can." We will do what we can, BECAUSE WE MUST.
In solidarity.
PRINT/SAVE 
