The union is grieving a Letter of Warning issued to Kathy Blank for allegedly missing an MSP scan. The union argues that: 1) The letter of warning is untimely and based solely on MSP data, which cannot be used alone to justify discipline. 2) Management did not conduct a thorough investigation or attempt progressive discipline, violating just cause principles. 3) The grievant was held to a higher standard than other carriers who had similar or worse scan rates. 4) Management arbitrarily implemented a new 99% scanning standard without union negotiation.

1. Contentions for NALC Grievance #042613APB
It is the position of the Union that local mgt at Capitol View Station (CVS) have violated each of the
Articles of the National Agreement in the manner listed in Box 15 on the 8190 when they issued a Letter of
Warning to Kathy Blank (the grievant).
I'd like to point out that this grievance is timely. The LOW was given to the grievant on 04/25/13. The
Union met with supervisor Wendy Porter within the 14 days. The Union submitted the 8190 to station manager
Roger Bounds within 7 days asking for a Formal A meeting. The Union then met with Roger Bounds for the
Formal A meeting on 05/21/13. The timelines have been satisfied.
First, we would like to point out that the Union objects to mgt issuing discipline based solely on MSP
data. Mgt argues that the grievant admitted to missing the scan but this is not true and is contradicted by the
grievant in her interview on page 3. Mgt asked the grievant several days after the scan was allegedly missed why
she might have missed it. The grievant has 18 total MSP scans on her route. Mgt alleges that she missed a scan
on April 03 but then talks about it to her almost a week later. That's approximately 90 scans later. What the
grievant did remember was that was the day that she got back to the office early for her Dr appt. She did NOT
admit to not scanning it. Since mgt has decided to do PDI's days after the alleged missed scan in an attempt to
deny carriers the right to properly defend themselves, mgt has instead solely used the MSP data report to justify
issuing discipline to the grievant.
As you can see from pages 20-21, MOU-01458 states that mgt may not discipline based solely on MSP
data alone. It may be used in conjunction with other data to justify discipline. Mgt has NO other data to justify
discipline. Simply an MSP report that shows a scanned label failed to download. Mgt arguing that they are
disciplining her based on a lack of MSP data is simply semantics at it's worst. Their evidence is a MSP data
report but they aren't using MSP data to justify discipline. Mgt contradicts themselves at every turn. The Union
cites arbitrator Dilts in C-20350 when he makes clear that mgt's only proof of a carrier not scanning an MSP
label is MSP data which can not be used to discipline carriers by itself.
There are good reasons as to why we should not be disciplined solely on the basis of MSP data. For one
thing we have no way of proving ourselves innocent. Unlike delivery confirmation or accountable mail scans we
can not go into the scanner and verify that MSP scans were made. We can scan an MSP label all day long and
then have mgt tell us that we missed it.
Mgt makes the argument that Arbitrator Hamrick ruled in case C06N-4C-D 11251077 that carriers could
be disciplined based on MSP data. This argument has little merit. For one thing, this was a regional arbitration
that has no hold over Jefferson City, Mo. For another, arbitral precedent is contrary to the opinion of arbitrator
Hamrick. Also, the above case is totally different than this case. In that case Arbitrator Hamrick determined that
the grievants did not scan their MSP labels and that was why they were disciplined. Mgt proved to the
arbitrator's satisfaction that the grievant's did not scan the labels. The arbitrator also considered the fact that the
grievant's had already had several instances of adjudicated discipline in their file for the exact same offense. This
is not true of the grievant in this case. She not only has no discipline for MSP scanning but has no discipline in
her file for anything!!
Second, the Union argues that mgt is issuing discipline punitively instead of correctively. This is a
serious breach of the Just Cause principles listed in the JCAM. Mgt has made no attempt to address any alleged
deficiencies on the grievant's part. As you can see from page 4, the grievant has never been offered retraining or
any training. Mgt alleges that they've given the grievant an official job discussion but there is no evidence of
that. In fact, the grievant explicitly states that she was only told that she missed a scan at her case by station mgr
Roger Bounds. He then told her that if she missed one more scan she would be given a LOW. The grievant is the
carrier on CR041. As you can see from the MSP weekly scanning reports the grievant has as good of a scanning
record, better than many, as anyone in the office. Mgt has made only a superficial attempt to correct any alleged
deficiencies and then have tried to claim otherwise.

2. In fact, after the LOW was given, the grievant started keeping notes of when she actually scanned MSP
labels. Station mgr Roger Bounds told her she missed another scan and she showed him that she couldn't have
missed it and showed him the time she scanned it. He then alleged that she must have had her scanner set up
wrong but when he checked it it in fact was proven to not be set up wrong. Mgt has simply embarked on a
mission of issuing discipline regardless of what the facts say and refuse to hear any other option.
Third, the Union would like to argue that this discipline, and mgt's superficial investigation, are
untimely. Mgt alleged the grievant missed an MSP scan on April 03. They do a PDI on April 09. They then write
a LOW up on April 11. They then issue it to the grievant on April 25. Two weeks after LOW was printed. The
grievant is on the overtime desired list and works 6 days a week on some weeks. The grievant has 18 MSP labels
on her route. That's a total of 324 MSP labels between the time she was alleged to miss a scan and the time she's
issued a LOW. This entire endeavor by mgt has been done in a way to deprive the grievant of her due process
rights and a chance to defend herself. One of the principles listed in the JCAM of Just Cause is “was discipline
issued in a timely manner”. Waiting a week to do a PDI after an alleged missed scan, then waiting 2 weeks
after printing off a LOW to issue said LOW, is simply mgt attempting to keep the grievant from properly
defending herself against their MSP report. With the sheer volume of MSP scans, delivery confirmation scans,
accountable mail scans, etc., it if difficult if nigh impossible to remember ONE scan out of the hundreds.
Another principle of Just Cause is “Was a thorough investigation completed??” The answer is an
obvious “NO”. Mgt can only argue to printing off MSP missed reports and a vehicle utilization report that
showed that the grievant's vehicle on that day did not have it's mileage in there. As none of this was brought to
anyone's attention until almost a week later it's now impossible for the Union to prove otherwise. If the MSP
missed report shows a missed scan then it will automatically not show the mileage of the vehicle regardless of
the reason as to why the MSP label did not show up. The report shows only that the mileage didn't download.
This is common and in multiple cases when mgt's reports show that the mileage didn't download they check the
scanner and the vehicle and the mileage was correct. It simply didn't show up in the system.
Also, the grievant alleged during her PDI that maybe the scanner didn't remember the scan. Mgt made no
attempt to even check this out. They simply assumed it wasn't true. In the IMD user guide (pages 45-46) it lists
problem solving. Under the problem solving it lists several problems the IMD could be having. One of them is
“incomplete data transmissions between IMD and IMD cradle”. This alone shows there is the potential for
SOME of the data to be transmitted meaning not ALL of it could have come through. It then lists several
troubleshooting options. 1 – check that the device is properly docked, 2 – check cable connections from the
modem or LIM computer to the IMD cradle, and 3 – contact the help desk or see your system administrator. And
yet if you look at the interview with supervisor Wendy Porter on page 5, when asked what troubleshooting she
did when confronted with this problem she states that she checked the vehicle utilization report and the MSP
missed report. She did NONE of the troubleshooting listed in the IMD user guide for this exact problem. She
simply assumed it wasn't true and didn't bother checking like she was supposed to do as part of her investigation.
The grievant deserved to have mgt to a proper investigation and yet was denied.
Mgt's Formal A representative said during the Formal A meeting that he always asks carriers who are
alleged to miss an MSP scan whether or not they scanned a certified or a delivery confirmation label at the same
time they scanned an MSP label. As you can see from the interview on page 4 this is untrue. Mgt had a standup
on May 16th
, 2013 where they imparted this information for the first time to letter carriers. No one had been told
that if they scanned a delivery confirmation or certified letter within 1 minute of an MSP label that it might now
show up. Mgt never even investigated as to whether or not this was what was making some labels not show up.
In light of this serious and new information that was finally released to letter carriers all discipline should be
thrown out just on general principles.
Fourth, mgt has discriminated against the grievant. She has been held to a different standard than most
carriers in our office. As you can see from the MSP weekly missed scan reports, the grievant on CR041 shows
that that route missed three MSP scans over a 2 week period. With 18 scans on her route, multiplied by 12 days,

3. that gives a total of 216 potential scans. Missing 3 scans is a 98.7% scan rate. This report doesn't even show that
the grievant is the one who missed all 3 of these scans or if her T-6 replacement or auxiliary assistance missed
them. As you can see from these reports there are 19 routes at CVS that missed either the same amount of scans,
or more, during the same time period. In an office of 38 city routes and 1 truck/express route half of these routes
have exactly the same or worse scanning percentages than the grievant's route and yet the grievant is one of only
3 carriers in this office that have been disciplined for allegedly missing MSP scans during this same period. How
can mgt justify holding the grievant to a higher standard, and issuing her discipline when they look the other way
for many other carriers??
One of the key principles of Just Cause listed in the JCAM is “was the discipline in line with what's
usually administered??” The record shows that what mgt usually does is look the other way for most carriers.
How can they now justify disciplining only a few when the record shows that other carriers are getting away
with worse??
Also, as you can see from the Vehicle utilization report on page 19, the grievant was one of 3 carriers
whose mileage didn't download that day, Mike Theroff on CR035 and Joe Kennedy on CR019 being the other
two. As you can see from pages 11-14, CR035 missed 2 scans in just 1 week. CR019 missed 2 as well. Why are
neither of them being disciplined?? None of them have even been talked to.
Fifth, the Union alleges that mgt is attempting to institute new work standards that were never
collectively bargained for with the Union. It is unreasonable to expect carriers to be 100% perfect. There is
nothing in our National Agreement that states that. The Union has agreed that carriers will scan MSP labels when
they come to them. Expecting perfection though is unrealistic. Even if the DRT or an arbitrator is persuaded that
the grievant did not scan the alleged MSP scan, without any proof on mgt's part that the grievant was willfully or
deliberately failing to scan MSP scans it is difficult to justify discipline for something no carrier in our entire
office is perfect at.
As you can see from page 2, mgt's Formal A representative stated during the Formal A meeting
that he is holding carriers in our office to a 99% scanning standard, not 100% as the Union alleges. This
is an arbitrary standard that mgt can not explain how they even arrived at. It wasn't negotiated and
MOU-01458 states explicitly that MSP data doesn't set performance standards. It is inappropriate for
mgt to now arbitrarily come up with their own percentage that carriers must make to avoid discipline.
MOU-00209 states that changes in work or time standards will be initiated only at the national level.
Every case should be decided on the merits. Not on a percentage of scans that show up on a report. Mgt
has no right to implement this new performance standard. Also, as the MSP weekly missed reports
show on pages 11-14, mgt doesn't hold all carriers to this standard. Only some.
Also, one of the principles of just cause is “is there a rule and if there is a rule is it
reasonable??” As you can see from the grievant's interview on page 4, the grievant denies ever being
told there was a 99% standard for letter carriers. She thought we were supposed to make them all. Mgt
has never told our carriers of what the rule was. How can they now expect to discipline carriers for not
meeting a standard they never told us of?? Also, as the MSP weekly reports show on pages 11-14 the
grievant's route showed a 98.7% scanning rate. How can mgt now justify discipline based on a .3%
variance?? Is that reasonable?? Even in regards to negotiated standards such as 18 & 8 it is a well
established principle that carriers can not be disciplined simply for not making standard. M-39 Section
242.332 states: “No carriers shall be disciplined for failure to meet standards, except in cases of
unsatisfactory effort which must be based on documented, unacceptable conduct that led to the
carrier's failure to meet standards.” Mgt has done none of this. They've simply printed off a form that
shows a label failed to download and now have issued discipline for failing to follow instructions for
not meeting a new, arbitrary 99% standard that no one knew about. 99% over what time frame?? 99%
over a two week period?? Over a year?? A month?? If a carrier is 99% on average throughout a quarter,

4. but dips below 99% for 1 week, may they then be disciplined?? Mgt has never informed us of this. A
carrier that has 18 MSP scans on his/her route, and works 5 days a week, will scan 900 scans over a 10
week period. Mgt alleges that they want 99% scanning efficiency from their carriers but since they
won't give us a time frame for it a carrier could literally miss 9 scans over this time frame and be within
mgt's imposed standards. But if 2 happens in 1 week, and 1 in the next week, mgt goes ahead with
discipline. The carrier may very well be scanning at 99% over the long term but dip below it at 1 period
of time or another. The Union requests that this arbitrary scanning standard be
thrown out as well as a remedy.
Sixth, when the grievant was told by station mgr Roger Bounds that if she missed one more
scan she would be given a LOW it was obviously preordained that she would be given one. This
removed the immediate supervisor, Wendy Porter, from the decision making loop. Her boss decided
that the grievant would get a LOW for her next missed scan but would now have you believe that
supervisor Porter retained the ability to reach her own decision on whether or not discipline was
warranted. That is a stretch of the imagination. One of the principles of issuing discipline enshrined in
our contract is that discipline should come from the grievant's immediate supervisor. This is the person
that is most familiar with the grievant's work history. Not some station mgr who sits behind a desk in a
back office reading emails.
We would also point out that this deprived the grievant of her due process rights. Supervisor
Porter met on this grievance at the Informal A. Since she knew that her boss had issued the discipline
she was not able to resolve this grievance at the lowest possible level as provided for in Article 15. She
simply had to send it up to the next level as the decision was taken out of her hands. Mgt does not even
deny that any of this actually happened. They simply keep trying to say that supervisor Porter made the
decision in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. This grievance could have been thrown out at
the lowest possible level on it's merit and instead has to go further because the discipline came from the
station mgr and not the front line supervisor. As you can see from the Disciplinary Action Proposal on
page 17, it specifically says that the supervisor who is filling it out is “requesting” discipline. When
asked, supervisor Porter stated that she was requesting the discipline from herself. The Union would
contend that this explanation is hard to believe.
Seventh, the Union alleges a violation of Article 31. The Union has a right to request
information that they believe will be instrumental in processing grievances. The Union makes a strong
charge that the scanners we use are not flawless in any way. Any system designed by human beings will
have flaws just like the human beings that designed them. For mgt to claim otherwise shows simple
ignorance. Since 2011 (pages 29-30) the Union has requested maintenance and manufacturing data on
the IMD scanners. This request was again made recently as you can see from page 10. Mgt simply
wrote “N/A” next to these requests. They made no effort to get the data we requested. They didn't make
any phone calls. No emails were sent. They simply refused the request. This was a blatant violation of
Article 31.
The Union has several witness statements from other carriers in this packet that show they've
had problems with their scanners as well. The statement from the Union President on pages 6-7 show
that he was alleged to have missed a scan even when he had a witness who saw him scan it. When
mgt's report shows that a scan was missed even when a witness saw it scanned this alone shows that
there might be serious flaws in the system whereby not all scans will always show up. The IMD
scanners have been in use for over half a decade. It is therefore reasonable and germane to the issue to
request maintenance data and manufacturing data. Every system used by the USPS, including CFS &

5. DPS, have error rates. Usually of 2% or greater. Mgt would have you believe the error rate of the IMD
scanner is 0. This is belied by common sense. The Union NEEDS this information so as to mount a
proper defense for their member. To deny us this information is to deny the grievant due process and
violate federal law. It is now the subject of a labor charge as well as you can see from page 73.
Even mgt's own actions suggest there is something wrong with the scanners. Mgt alleges that
the grievant has a problem making her scans of sufficient magnitude to warrant discipline but even they
only disciplined her for one of the alleged missed scans of the 3 that it shows her route missed during a
2 week period on pages 11-14. 1 they talked to her about at her case. 1 they disciplined her for. And the
3rd
?? Apparently they believe as well that the 3rd
must have been a system error or they would have
disciplined her for it as well.
As you can see from page 43, the OIG issued their reasoning as to why the USPS should
transition to the IMD's from the MDCD's in the first place. They listed that the MDCD's had reached
the end of their useful life and their error rate had increased over the past few years. The MDCD's were
deployed at the end of 1998 and phased out in 2005 because of their increasing error rate. The Union
includes the original statements about the MDCD's contract issuance in 1997 on pages 68-69. The
IMD's have been in use approximately the same period of time and yet mgt argues they are error free.
How is this possible?? All the more reason for mgt to hand over the manufacturing and maintenance
data so that we can see for ourselves what the real error rate of the IMD's is. If the carrier's scanning
percentage is approximately the same as the error rate of the scanners then no discipline is warranted
but mgt is deliberately hiding this data.
As you can see from pages 70-72, the USPS had issued a new contract proposal for a new
vendor to supply services such as maintenance and performance data for the IMD's. Yet they now claim
that this information is not available. It's obvious that the data is available but just not to the Union
when filing a grievance.
Also, as you can see from pages 53-61, the Union has had problems in the past with mgt
refusing to supply requested information. Mgt has even agreed that they will pay a $25 penalty per day
for not supplying information within 24 hours. The Union requests this as a remedy as well
for this grievance.
Eighth, the Union charges that mgt is still talking to grievants at their cases on the workroom
floor about alleged deficiencies and then calling it a “job discussion”. The Union charges that a carrier
who allegedly misses approximately 1% of her scans out of hundreds is at the most worthy of a job
discussion and probably not even that. The Union though charges that the grievant never received a job
discussion in spite of mgt's protestations to the contrary. Job discussions are supposed to be in private
between the employee and the supervisor. It is NOT supposed to be done on the workroom floor
amongst the employee's coworkers so that everyone can listen in.
In a prior grievance on this same issue (pages 37-40), the DRT pointed out that mgt did not
prove that they had taken the carriers into the office to do job discussions and that they had instead
talked to the carriers at their cases. The DRT emphasized that job discussions are supposed to be in
private.
We would also like to point out that mgt in no way even considered the grievant's prior
disciplinary record before issuing her a LOW. The grievant has been a letter carrier since 1989 and has

6. never been disciplined once for any reason. The grievant has built up a bank of good will in her 24
years of service that has been ignored by mgt. Arbitrators have long held that mgt must consider the
overall disciplinary record of a carrier before issuing discipline. Mgt ignored this crucial step in their
rush to discipline.
Mgt made the argument that discipline was justified because offices like Columbia, Missouri
have allowed discipline for their carriers for the same offense. When we checked though we found this
to be untrue. On pages 65-67 you can see the local settlements on this discipline from Columbia. They
have agreed with their mgt team on reasonable settlements that agree there can be many reasons as to
why MSP scans don't show up. Unfortunately, our local mgt team does not have the ability to be so
reasonable.
We would also point out that the charges on the LOW aren't specific as to how the grievant
violated the specific charges. Mgt charged the grievant with failing to follow instructions but include
no evidence as to how she failed to follow instructions. By not scanning 99% of her MSP labels?? She
was never instructed to do this so how could she have failed to follow this instruction?? Mgt charged
the grievant with violating Section 112.21 of the M-41 that states that she should obey the instructions
of her manager which would mean she disobeyed an instruction. The dictionary defines disobey as a
refusal to obey. Mgt has shown no inclination on the part of the grievant to refuse to obey or to
willfully disregard orders. Since mgt was not there when the grievant scanned her MSP label they have
no proof that she “refused” to obey.
Another issue would be the unseemliness of mgt being informed by the grievant that she had a
problem with her scanner and then they do a PDI for an alleged missed MSP scan. This smacks of
employer intimidation and there is no place for this type of behavior in the USPS.
Mgt also continues to make the argument that the grievant missed MSP scans after the
day she was alleged to have missed it on April 03. Once again they are simply relying on MSP data to
make this assertion, which the grievant denies, and since none of these alleged missed MSP scans were
used in the determination to issue this LOW they should not be used in the determination to expunge it.
We would also argue that there was no cost to the USPS for any alleged missed scan. Mgt
argues that there is the cost of having to discipline and correct these alleged deficiencies but that is
simply their choice. They made the choice to discipline for a minor infraction that they couldn't even
prove happened. If mgt had simply used reason and common sense then there would have been no extra
cost whatsoever. Also, since mgt never tried to correct the alleged deficiencies and simply went straight
to discipline there was even less cost than there would have been if mgt had done things right.
For all of the above reasons, the Union asks that the LOW be expunged from the grievant's
OPF, that mgt pay $25 per day to the Union for each day past the 24 hours they should have provided
the Union with information, and that mgt cease and desist in applying a 99% work standard for
scanning MSP labels to their carriers.
Jason Yoder
Steward, NALC Branch 127
Jefferson City, Missouri