[2/13/2015 by Ken Hamrick]
On Nov. 8, 1991, a discharged letter carrier, armed with a loaded semiautomatic rifle, entered the Main Post Office in Royal Oak, Michigan, from an unsecured rear loading dock. Seeking out supervisors who had been responsible for his discipline, the discharged letter carrier fired more than 100 rounds, hitting eight people before taking his own life. Four of his victims, including the principal witness at his arbitration hearing, died.
As a result of the Royal Oak tragedy, the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace was composed and signed by several signatories, on Feb. 14, 1992, including the U.S.P.S., the N.A.L.C., and the N.P.M.H.U.
The Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace
We all grieve for the Royal Oak victims, and we sympathize with their families, as we have grieved and sympathized all too often before in similar horrifying circumstances. But grief and sympathy are not enough. Neither are ritualistic expressions of grave concern or the initiation of investigations studies, or research projects.The United States Postal Service as a institution and all of us who serve that institution must firmly and unequivocally commit to do everything within our power to prevent further incidents of work-related violence.
This is a time for candid appraisal of our flaws and not a time for scapegoating, fingerpointing, or procrastination. It is a time for reaffirming the basic right of all employees to a safe and humane working environment. It is also the time to take action to show that we mean what we say.
We openly acknowledge that in some places or units there is an unacceptable level of stress in the workplace; that there is no excuse for and will be no tolerance of violence or any threats of violence by anyone at any level of the Postal Service; and that there is no excuse for and will be no tolerance of harassment, intimidation, threats or bullying by anyone.
We also affirm that every employee at every level of the Postal Service should be treated at all times with dignity, respect and fairness. The need for the USPS to serve the public efficiently and productively, and the need for all employees to be committed to giving a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, does not justify actions that are abusive or intolerant. “Making the numbers” is not an excuse for the abuse of anyone. Those whose unacceptable behavior continues will be removed from their positions.
We obviously cannot ensure that however seriously intentioned our words may be, they will not be treated with winks and nods, or skepticism, by some of our 700,000 employees. But let there be no mistake that we mean what we say and we will enforce our commitment to a workplace where dignity, respect, and fairness are basic human rights, and where those who do not respect those rights are not tolerated.
Our intention is to make the workroom floor a safe, more harmonious, as well as a more productive workplace. We pledge our efforts to these objectives.
According to Mike Gallagher, APWU Eastern Region Coordinator, the APWU “chose not to be a signatory to the document because, quite frankly, we knew that the USPS would apply the principles of the Joint Statement against bargaining unit employees and not against managers.[…]” Gallagher continued:
[…]The NALC and the MHU found out that the APWU was correct in that the USPS did apply the Joint Statement in a disparate fashion. The NALC’s stewards found themselves filing grievances claiming violations of the Joint Statement by managers and the Service wouldn’t take any administrative or disciplinary action.
The NALC was forced by the USPS to take the issue of the Service’s disparity […] to headquarter level arbitration.
The USPS took the position that the NALC had no right to use the Grievance Arbitration Procedure in order to enforce the Joint Statement and/or to request administrative or disciplinary action to be taken against managers.
National Level Arbitrator [Carlton] Snow ruled:
“Having carefully considered all evidence submitted by the parties concerning this matter, the arbitrator concludes that the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace constitutes a contractually enforceable agreement between the parties. Accordingly the Union shall have access to the negotiated grievance procedure set forth in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement to resolve disputes arising under the Joint Statement.” [Case # Q90N-4F-C 94024977/94024038, Arbitrator Carlton J. Snow, dated 8/16/96.]
Thereafter, the NALC has successfully pursued supervisory misconduct through the Grievance Arbitration Procedure.1
According to Gallagher, “The Mailhandlers took a different approach,” and in 1997, they made a resolution “renouncing the NPMHU as signatory to the statement.” But this attempt failed, because as National Arbitrator Snow had ruled, the Joint Statement “constituted a contractually enforceable agreement between the parties.”
Gallagher cited 15 regional arbitration cases, from 1990 to 2000, in which the NALC successfully pursued supervisory misconduct. Two examples are cited below.
Regional Arbitrator Bernice Fields, in a ruling for the NALC against the Postal Service in 2000, in a case of bullying by a supervisor, had this to say regarding The Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace:
Violence in the workplace begins long before fists fly, or lethal weapons extinguish lives. Where resentment and aggression routinely displace cooperation and communication, violence has occurred. Such violence surfaces as threats, intimidation, harassment, and sub-lethal assault.[…] The JOINT AGREEMENT is intended to reach and to correct emotional violence as well as actual physical attacks.[…]
[…]Because the relationship between supervisor and employee is inherently unequal, an employee confronted by a supervisor with behavior that a reasonable person would find offensive such as yelling, name-calling, profane, sarcastic, belittling, or other inappropriate language is a victim of workplace intimidation and bullying because the employee cannot react as though the assault came from an equal. Such behaviors constitute threats to an employee even if no direct threatening language is used. The threat is implied in the nature of the relationship, a supervisor can do things to the employee from writing a negative evaluation to termination, therefore the supervisor will be held to a higher standard of review in supervisor-employee confrontations. The offense is aggravated if it occurs in front of co-workers or third persons such as Postal customers. Angry shouting, abusive, profane or other inappropriate language demeans and humiliates an employee, and has no place on the workroom floor. Such behavior violates the JOINT AGREEMENT and will subject a supervisor to discipline even for a single incident. When such behavior is the supervisor’s everyday management style on the workroom floor, there is a presumption that a hostile work environment exists, and more stringent remedies may be taken to correct the situation.[…]
Authoritarian power centered management is passé, and can no longer be justified in the industrial setting. Supervisors and managers who fail to change with the times contribute to workplace unrest and do violence to the workplace. There is no substitute for civility in supervision and a mutual regard for the dignity of persons in interpersonal relationships. Compassion is fully consistent with firm decision making.2
In a similar ruling for the NALC in 2010, Regional Arbitrator Karen Jacobs stated:
[…]The Joint Statement addresses preventing violence from occurring, not just disciplining those who commit acts of violence.
The Joint Statement is a statement of no tolerance of violence, but it is also a commitment to maintain an atmosphere in the workplace that is not likely to lead to violence, where there is respect for and humane treatment of individuals. It is not just a statement that violence will be punished severely, but that behavior is required that creates a workplace environment that will not be conducive to violence. The Joint Statement recognizes all employees have a basic right to a humane working environment. It recognizes there are unacceptable levels of stress.
It establishes a zero tolerance for the outward acts of violence, or threats of violence. But it also commits to enforcing a workplace where dignity, respect, and fairness are basic human rights, and where those who do not respect those rights are not tolerated.[…]
[…]I firmly believe that employees who are treated with respect and dignity are much more likely to do more and better work, to be more concerned about the results of their work, to be cooperative than are employees who are harassed, threatened, demeaned, feel they are not treated fairly. These employees are more likely to be on the defensive, be resentful, be less cooperative, and to spend time on grievances.3
In addressing the prospect of the APWU pursuing action against managers who violate the Joint Statement, Gallagher explained:
Initally it must be pointed out that this area is a relatively unexplored area by the [APWU]. Further it’s important to note that the Joint Statement is but a set of principles openly embraced in order to do just that, make a STATEMENT. This statement however is nothing more than a further articulation of what is already a part of our Collective Bargaining Agreement via the Code of Conduct.[…]
Whether the APWU is signatory to the Joint Statement or not, the employees we represent are held to the standards articulated in the Joint Statement […] Further the Employer and each management association are signatory to the document, in which they have pledged to follow the requirements of the Joint Statement.
Gallagher also cited Elkouri and Elkouri (How Arbitrator Works, Fifth Edition, Page 934):
It is generally accepted that enforcement of rules and assessment of discipline must be exercised in a consistent manner; all employees who engage in the same type of misconduct must be treated essentially the same unless a reasonable basis exists for variations in the assessment of punishment (such as different degrees of fault or mitigating or aggravating circumstances affecting some but not all of the employees.) […]
In other words, to the extent that the Postal Service brings the APWU-represented employees under the authority of the Joint Statement, by applying its standards to those employees in administering discipline, it puts itself under the same standards with regard to redress by the APWU. It is because this is somewhat of a “back-door” ratification that the APWU has been slow to seek the kind of arbitrational redress that the NALC has been busy seeking, and that is also why arbitrators have not been quick to embrace a full equality of obligation between management and the APWU-represented employees. In 2012, in a case brought by the APWU, Regional Arbitrator Lamont Stallworth stated:
The Union strenuously argues that the Joint Statement amends the exclusive right of the Postal Service to discipline supervisors and delegates that right to a neutral arbitrator when the supervisors actions violate the provisions of the Joint Statement. The Union submits that the National Award of Arbitrator Snow basically states that if the Postal Service is going to discipline violent workers then the contract principle of mutality of remedies requires that supervisors and craft workers be treated equally. The Undersigned Arbitrator agrees in principle that policies against workplace violence must be implemented and enforced across the board against all employees. Workplace safety demands such a response.
The National Agreement, handbooks, and policies, however, all deal with this issue directly. As to using the Snow Award and extending this to supervisors by discipline being imposed by neutral arbitrators, all involved must tread carefully. The Undersigned Arbitrator must point out that the Union failed to join in on the Joint Statement with the NALC. As the Service notes, the Union was not a signatory to the statement and its accompanying obligations. It is therefore the opinion of the Arbitrator that, while a neutral arbiter, he is nonetheless precluded from imposing discipline directly against supervisors. […]4
Nevertheless, the trajectory is in our favor. As the Joint Statement is continually reinforced over the years as the standard for all employees, including those represented by the APWU, we become more and more entrenched as a de facto party to that contractual agreement—even without our initial consent. Just five months ago, in an ice-breaker case brought by the APWU, Regional Arbitrator Judith Bello stated:
[…]It is without question that the requirements of the ELM Section 665.24 and the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace apply equally to supervisors and craft employees. Management must be held to the same standard as craft employees when it comes to adhering to postal policies against workplace violence. If a supervisor violates these policies, the supervisor must be held accountable for their actions. When an allegation such as that which occurred in this case is made, upper Management must be apprised and appropriate action must be taken. Each employee is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect by other employees including supervisors.
The question of the application of the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace as a contractually enforceable agreement between the parties was addressed definitively by National Arbitrator Carlton J. Snow. He found that “… the Union shall have access to the negotiated grievance procedure set forth in the parties collective bargaining agreement to resolve disputes arising under the Joint Statement.” In addition, he held that arbitrators, when formulating remedies, could remove a supervisor from his or her administrative duties. Even though the APWU was not signatory to the Joint Statement, it follows that the application of its principles, which are incorporated in the ELM Section 665.24, applies to all craft and supervisory personnel. All employees must abide by the provisions of the Joint Statement and the ELM Section 665.24 including both craft and supervisory employees.5
The award for this case, by Arbitrator Bello, was as follows: “[…] the grievance is denied in part as moot and granted in part with the remedy as set forth herein.” The grievance was “denied in part as moot” only because the remedy requested was that the supervisor “be permanently removed from Lenox Hill North,” and the supervisor was “transferred to Grand Central Station very soon after this alleged incident” [and prior to the arbitration hearing]—thus, “the requested remedy has already been achieved.” However, the arbitrator did not simply deny the grievance as moot, but made it a point to declare it to be “granted in part with the remedy as set forth herein.” This gives a decisive victory in principle to the APWU, in effect stating that the arbitrator grants the requested transfer, but with nothing left for the Postal Service to do since it has already complied with the remedy.
Now is the time for the APWU to press for Management’s full obligation to the standards of the Joint Statement, and to pursue appropriate action against abusive and bullying supervisors in every case. Gone should be the days when “cease and desist” was the limit of our redress, mindlessly repeated in grievance after grievance with the same abusive supervisors. It’s time for the kind of real change envisioned and hoped for in the Joint Statement. It’s time for zero tolerance for bullies in charge!
- 1 Mike Gallagher, “How to Pursue Administrative and/or Disciplinary Action Against that Abusive Supervisor or Postmaster,” position paper, APWU Eastern Region Coordinator
- 2 Regional Arbitration, USPS Number: I94N41C99136168, USPS v. NALC, Arbitrator: Bernice L. Fields, 10/12/2000.
- 3 Regional Arbitration, USPS Number: E06N4EC09402571, USPS v. NALC, Arbitrator: Karen H. Jacobs, 2/2/2010.
- 4 Regional Arbitration, USPS Number: J06CIJC11126250, USPS v. APWU, Arbitrator: Lamont E. Stallworth, 3/9/2012.
- 5 Regional Arbitration, USPS Number: B10C4BC13383425, USPS v. APWU, Arbitrator Judith C. Bello, 9/17/2014.