receivedmseries.nalc.org/c04711.pdf · e&lr (behavior and personal habits) ; part 666.1 of the...
TRANSCRIPT
IVOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION
iIN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION
tBETWEEN
iUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICEDETROIT, MICHIGAN POST OFFICEDETROIT, MICHIGAN 48233 i
iAND
iNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERSBRANCH NO . 1,DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226 j
CASE NO . CIN-4B-D 31325
-----------------------------------------~
OPINION AND AWARD
RECEIVEDMAR 18 1985
Jack R. SeboltSubject : Failure to discharge duties -
Consumption of alcohol during working hours .
Submission Agreement : John Smith , Grievant
Was the removal of theTGrievant for just cause, and,if not, what shall the remedy be?
Contract and Handbook and Manual Provisions :
Article 16 and Article 19 of the 1981 National Agreement,Joint Exhibit 1 ;
Part 661 .54 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual( Use of Intoxicating Beverages ) ; Part 666 .2 of theE&LR (Behavior and Personal Habits ) ; Part 666 .1 of theE&LR (Discharge of Duties ) ; and Section 112 .25 of theM-41 Handbook .
Appearances :
For the Employer
Bennie J . Powell , Labor Relations RepresentativeMarvel Brown , Manager, Springwells Station
For the Union
Peter Romanelli , PresLdent Emeritus , Branch 1, NALCJohn H . Smith , GrievantGeloney Kelly , Jr ., Financial Secretary
I . INTRODUCTION
The hearing in this case was held on Wednesday, November 7,
1984 at the Main Post Office , 1401 West Fort Street , Detroit,
Michigan 48233 , before the undersigned Arbitrator duly
appointed by the parties pursuant to the rules of the United
States Postal Service Regular Regional Level Arbitration
Procedures to render a final and binding decision in this
matter . At the hearing, the parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to present such evidence and argument as desired , including
an examination and cross - examination of all witnesses .
transcript of the hearing was made . The Employer filed
hearing brief , which was received on December 11, 1984,
the hearing was declared closed ,"-since the Union relied
comprehensive oral closing . Both parties stipulated at
ing as to this Arbitrator ' s jurisdiction and authority
a final and binding decision in this matter .
II . STATEMENT OF THE GRIEVANCE
No formal
a post-
whereupon
on its
the hear- _
to issue
FACTS : Notice of Charges - Removal ( non-veteran ) No justcause - Grievant states that he delivered all maildistributed to his route on 3/8 / 84 . Management didnot present evidence at Step 1 to prove the allegedcharge .
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTED :Rescind Notice of Charges - Removal ( non-veteran) andreimburse any lost wages or benefits .
III . FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 20, 1984, the Grievant was issued a Notice of
Charges-Removal, to be effective no earlier than thirty days from
receipt by Grievant . The Notice of Removal specified the following
grounds as reason for the discharge :
On 03/08/84 you were assigned to Springwells Station,Route #912, Detroit, Michigan 48209 . On 03/09/84 inthe afternoon the Station Manager received complaintsthat mail had not been delivered on Route #912 on03/08/84 . Additionally, the Station Manager receiveda call from the Postal Service Complaints Officer . Hestated that he had received a complaint on non-deliveryof mail on your route on 03/08/84 . A total of ten (10)consumer service cards were received by the manager ofSpringwells Station which were complaints of non-deliveryoff mail on Junction Street, Toledo Street, NewberryStreet and Rpmeyn Street on Route #912 on 03/08/84 .
The consumer service cards also indicate that you fre-quently appeared to be under the apparent influence ofintoxicants when you are on duty on your route .
Additionally, your supervisor observed that upon yourreturn to the station on 03/08/84 you appeared to beunder the apparent influence of intoxicants, your eyeswere glassy and your face was flushed .
Your conduct is unacceptable and your conduct failed tomeet the Postal Service's Standard of Conduct as statedin the Employee and Labor Relations Manual :
Section 666 .1 - Discharge of Duties"Employees are expected to discharge their assignedduties conscientiously and effectively ."
Section 666 .2 - Behavior and Personal Habits"Employees are expected to conduct themselves duringand outside of working hours in a manner which re-flects favorably upon the Postal Service . Althoughit is not the policy of the Postal Service to inter-fere with the private lives of employees, it doesrequire that postal personnel be honest, reliable,trustworthy, courteous and of good character andreputation . Employees are expected to maintainsatisfactory personal habits so as not to'be obnoxiousor offensive to other persons or to create unpleasantworking conditions ."
- 3 -
4
And Handbook M-41, City Delivery Carriers Duties andResponsibilities, Section 112 .25 :
"Be prompt, courteous, and obliging in the performanceof duties . Attend quietly and diligently to work andrefrain from loud talking and the use of profanelanguage ."
The following elements of your past record will beconsidered in taking this action :
1 . Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated12/21/83 for conduct .
2 .
3 .
Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated06/09/83 for failure to obey orders .Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated03/23/83 for failure to adhere to prescribedschedule . Modified to seven calendar days perStep 1 settlement dated 04/09/83 .
4 . Notice of Suspension of seven (7) days dated12/14/82 for failure to follow instructions .Modified to five calendar days per. Pre-ArbitrationSettlement dated 04/13/83 .
5 . Letter of Warning dated 10/07/82 for safety violation .6 . Letter of Warning dated 09/15/82 for failure to
provide security of mail .7 . Letter of Warning dated 06/04/82 for improper
clock rings .8 . Letter of Warning dated 01/19/82 for improper
clock rings .9 . Letter of Warning dated 08/04/81 for failure to
make basic clock rings .10 . Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated
08/18/80 .11 . Letter of Warning dated 03/10/80 for failure to
conduct a vehicle safety check .12 . Notice of Suspension of seven (7) days dated
07/11/80 for Absent Without Official Leave .
The Grievant, John Smith, was appointed as a Career City
Letter Carrier at the Detroit, Michigan Post Office some 17 years
prior to his removal . The Grievant had served on his present
assigned city letter carrier route (Route 912 at Springwells
Station) for five years . Grievant was removed as a result of a
- 4 -
number of customer complaints that indicated that the Grievant
continuously delivered mail while in an intoxicated state ; failed
to deliver mail on Route 912 at Springwells Station on that date ;
was intoxicated on his route on the day in question ; and was
observed by at least one supervisor to be under the influence of
intoxicants when he returned from his route to the Springwells
Station that afternoon . Further, it is claimed that on March 9,
1984, the Station Manager received complaints of non-delivery
on Grievant's route for the previous day . The sole Management
witness, Manager , Springwells Station, Marvel Brown, gave-the
following account of events which led to Grievant' s removal .
Ms . Brown testified that Grievant was scheduled on Route 912 on
the day in question , March 8 , 1984 . According to Brown , Management
began to receive complaints about 4 P .M . that day . The complaints
were from irate-customers who asserted that no mail was delivered
on various blocks along the route, according to Brown' s testimony .
Brown claims she received some of the complaints herself , although
she left the premises before 4 P . M . when the bulk of the complaints
apparently came in . She also testified that Tom Webster , from the
Complaint Department downtown , called her early the next day and
informed her of numerous complaints to that department . It was
at this point, Brown stated , that she went to locations on the
route where specific complaining customers resided and began to
attempt to interview them herself . It is Brown's testimony that,
on March 9 , she interviewed numerous customers , who all complained
- 5 -
of Grievant ' s conduct the prior day and for sometime before the
precipitating incident . Some customers refused to fill out com-
plaint forms ; some would not give their names ; but all customers
interviewed who had seen Grievant the prior day claimed either
that he was intoxicated or that he was not performing his duties .
In substantiation of these assertions by the Employer,
Management submitted Employer Exhibit 2, which contains six
Consumer Service Cards (PS Form 4314 -C) where specific named
individuals stated that Grievant was intoxicated and failing to
deliver his mail on the day in question or at other times just
prior to that event . Employer Exhibit 2 also contains four PS
Form 4314-P Consumer Service Cards , which are the written notes
of telephone complaints taken by various postal employees . Two
out of the four cards were apparently taken by Witness Brown
herself . One card was taken by I . Brown , the Superintendent of
Stations and Branches Operations at Springwells, and one was
taken by L .' Rogers . All these forms complain of no mail delivery
on March 8 .
Employer Witness Brown testified that the complaints of
various customers indicate that the Grievant continuously
delivered mail while in an intoxicated state . Moreover, the
complaints are specific that a substantial number of homes on
route 912 received no mail delivery whatsoever on March 8 . The
customer complaint cards submitted into evidence do contain
complaints exactly as Brown indicated . No customers were actually
presented by Management at hearing to supply direct evidence of
the claims and allegations made by Management . Moreover, the
supervisor who allegedly observed Brown in an intoxicated state
on March 8 was not called to testify .
The Grievant emphatically denies the Employer ' s accusation
that he consumed alcohol while on duty March 8, 1984 . He insists
that he took pills or medication on the date in question and did
not drink any intoxicating liquor at any time during the day .
Grievant claims that when he returned to the station at approxi-
mately 3 P .M., no supervisor mentioned to him that he smelled
alcohol on his breath . No one confronted him or asked him to
take a breathalyzer test . Grievant further insists that he performed
all his duties on March 8 . It was .not until the following Monday,
after two days off while a substitute worked, that Grievant was
informed that there were customer -complaints or that there was
allegedly a problem with the Grievant's drinking on the job .
Grievant and the Union emphasize that no curtailed mail
was ever found that could be traced to Route 912 . The Union
stresses that no charges that Grievant threw away mail have been
lodged against Grievant, even though postal inspectors did investi-
gate the incident . Moreover, neither the substitute mail carrier
nor any other employee found hidden mail or mail outside Grievant's
case . The Union insists that, without evidence that mail was mis-
delivered or otherwise improperly handled , mere customer complaints -
rank hearsay at its worst - cannot support a removal action . Since
Management attempted to trace curtailed or misdelivered mail through
its considerable manpower , particularly through postal inspectors,
- 7 -
the failure to-come up with any mail that actually was not
properly delivered rebuts claims of customers that Grievant failed
to perform his=duties .
Grievant maintains throughout the grievance process and at
hearing that all accusations against him are totally unfounded
and that he was "set up " or framed because of his prior work
record and problems with Management . He also claimed that certain
customers who lived at the latter part of his delivery route were
angered by not receiving early delivery of their mail and held
Grievant personally responsible . He specifically asserted that
certain customers wanted their benefit checks and other monies
in the early morning, but that because of the layout of his route
he could not satisfy them. These customers instigated false
complaints and claims of drinking-while on the job , Grievant
argues .
Thus, the entire basis for the unwarranted allegations
and resulting discipline was because , at least in the Grievant's
mind, he had engaged in the normal activities and responsibilities
of a letter carrier . In support thereof , Grievant cites the fact
that several customers allegedly went along his route and attempted
to obtain signatures for a petition for his reinstatement . He
claims that certain customers thought Grievant was the best
carrier ever on the route . Although the Union concedes that this
testimony is hearsay , it reminds the Arbitrator that if credence
is given to Management ' s exclusively hearsay evidence, Grievant's
claims must be given equal credit .
- 8 -
While Grievant admits that he has had some problems at work,
he ascribes the source of the numerous disciplines against
him to "bad blood" between himself and Management at the
springwells Station. The Grievant specifically testified
that station management has given him "a hard time" beginning
in 1980 . Indeed , the record does indicate that , during this
period, Smith has been disciplined thirteen times, including the
present removal action . The Grievant further testified that,
prior to 1980 , he had few if any problems . To the contrary,
Management claims that Grievant was diciplined nine times
from 1976 to 1980 . This contradiction must seriously detract
from Grievant ' s credibility , Management urges .
IV . DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Arbitrator has accorded a great deal of time to the
consideration of this case , including the evaluation of the
evidence , the testimony of the two witnesses presented and
of the documentary evidence submitted to me . The issue
on the merits is one of relative simplicity , involving
a situation of alleged drinking on-the-job and of non-
performance or inadequate performance of mail deliveries
on March 8 , 1984 . The allegations of intoxication while
Grievant was in on-duty status, in carrier uniform, and at
a time when no official clock-out had occurred are indeed
serious . Such conduct merits summary discharge, under
this labor contract or under any reasonable concept of
just cause . Moreover , given Grievant ' s place on the
progressive discipline grid, the claims of lack of per-
formance of reasonable assigned work duties on the date in
question also would merit discipline , including in this
instance removal . These facts are the basis for Management's
charges that Grievant had engaged in conduct unbecoming
a postal employee and that he was perceived by his customers
as being consistently under the influence of intoxicants
while on duty on his route .
Management further avers that Supervisor Browny
credibly testified that she interviewed witnesses, all
of whom claimed to have observed the Grievant intoxicated
on the route on March 8 or at times prior tb_that critical
date . She testified in a frank and candid manner that
many of the customers whom she interviewed stated that
Grievant demanded to use their bathroom on the route, or
urinated at the side of a house or in other places
outdoors in plain view of the public . She indicated that
- 10 -
at least one customer stated that she saw Grievant in a bar
located on .the route on March 8, and that, at that time, Grievant
was intoxicated . In addition, Management points to the "testimony"
of the unnamed Management Supervisor, who was not present at
hearing but whose diaried observation was recorded in the grievance
documents themselves, which indicated . that Grievant, when he returned
to the Springwells Station on the afternoon of March 8, appeared
to be drunk . Given the Union's complete failure to ascribe any
improper motive or reason to discredit the evidence proferred by
the Service, Management's version of the facts must be credited,
it argues .,
Moreover, Management stresses that Grievant was referred
to the PAR-Alcohol Rehabilitation Program on October 8, 1982
but, by January 27, 1983, had quit participating in the program .
Accordingly, on March 25, 1983, William E . Booker, PAR Coordinator,
withdrew Grievant (referred to as the "client") from active files
and so indicated in writing to Management . Although Grievant
denied that he had a drinking problem on the witness stand at
this hearing, the above facts certainly can be used by the
Arbitrator in assessing credibility and the likelihood of
Grievant's behaving in a manner which the customers claimed
occurred . (See Employer Exhibit 3 .)
The Union, on the other hand, maintains that the grievance
should be sustained because the Grievant was removed without
just cause . At best , the Union emphasizes, the evidence proferred
- 11 -
by Employer is merely circumstantial and patently hearsay ; no one
testified that he or she had actually observed the Grievant drink-
ing alcohol or smelled alcohol on Grievant's breath, nor is there
any evidence that liquor was found on the Grievant's person or
jeep . Instead, the alleged proof of the use of alcoholic beverages
was based solely on the inference that because a certain super-
visor claimed to have observed the Grievant on March 8 in what
was his or her opinion an intoxicated state, that he must have
been drinking . Moreover, the complaints of customers not pre-
sented in person at the hearing cannot be given any credence
whatsoever, since they were not subjected to cross-examination
for possible bias or prejudice, because , for example, their
homes were located on the last portions of the route to be
delivered or for other, undisclosed reasons .
In the Union's view, no negative inferences can be drawn
from the testimony of Employer Witness Brown . There is no
concrete evidence that any of the people who complained on
March 8, if they in fact complained, had mail that particular
day. It is possible, for example, that an individual might
complain that mail was not delivered because a check or other
letter might be expected, but had been delayed by sources
wholly unrelated to Grievant .
The crux of this case, as the parties acknowledge,
involves two issues : a credibility determination by me and a
judgment as to whether hearsay evidence like that presented
- 12 -
here as the major portion of Management ' s case can , in this
instance , or ever , justify and prove a discharge of an employee
under the just cause standard in this labor contract .
Given the state of the record evidence actually adduced,
it appears to me that the Union is correct that Management
cannot sustain its burden of proof on the intoxication while on
duty contention . During this hearing , as in a game of tug-of-war,
each side enlisted the aid of an equal number of witnesses (one
to a side ) to support its respective position . Grievant denies
that he was drinking ; Management argues that he was .
Management Witness Brown insists that she was told by an
unnamed supervisor that Grievant was "observed " upon his return
to the station on March 8 and appeared to be under the apparent
influence of intoxicants . Brown reports that she was told that
Grievant ' s eyes were glassy and that his face was flushed . I,
like the Union , am deeply troubled by the failure of the Employer
to produce this supervisor so that he or she could be subjected
to cross-examination , since presumably the testimony elicited
would have constituted the only concrete and direct evidence
that Grievant in fact had been drinking on the job . Ordinarily,
under the rules of evidence applicable in courts of law, such
a failure to call a witness under the control of an interested
party would require a presumption that testimony given would be
adverse to that party .
- 13 -
Given the nature of the arbitration process , I am unwilling
to go so far under these particular circumstances . There is,
however, an obvious failure to elicit any concrete and direct
evidence of drinking on duty other than the hearsay complaints,of
customers introduced as Employer Exhibit 2 and the testimony of
Brown where she merely repeats the complaints of customers and
reports their alleged observations .
As the Union notes, correctly, I might add, it is possible
that an individual might drink the night before and be completely
sober when reporting for work and yet still retain the odor of
the intoxicating beverages which he may have consumed . It is
also possible that an individual taking medication might be
perceived by others as acting in_a manner which at times seems
like the behavior of a drunk, without having had one single drink .
Although these misinterpretations are unlikely, such innocent
errors have happened .
More important, as the Union stresses , those customers who
allegedly told Employer Witness Brown that they saw Grievant in
a bar, or urinating in public, or, otherwise saw behaviors that
seemed to indicate drunkenness on the job on the part of the
Grievant might not have had any experience or basis upon which
to so conclude . Although this is also merely a possibility, the
Arbitrator has no basis, given the nature of the proofs adduced,
to ascertain or conclude whether this is so or not . Opinion
evidence , such,as that presented by Brown , must , therefore, be
further discounted where , as here , the Employer witness and
- 14 -
complaining customers have not been brought to -the hearing .
Customers or the unnamed supervisor may in fact have a clear
bias against the Grievant . Without an ability to cross-examine
and ascertain the likelihood of the alleged bias, the Union has
been effectively prevented from making its case and Grievant has
been denied basic rights to confrontation which are inherent in
the arbitration process . I so hold .
Finally , the Union contends that it presented convincing
evidence through the testimony of Grievant that he had not
imbibed in alcohol on the date in question . Grievant conceded
that he has had a "problem " over the last five years , since the
break-up of his marriage . Management should have attempted
corrective action , not punitive action, in this case , it contends .
The Union further opines that theTService should have attempted
to counsel Grievant and call him into its office and try to help
him with his work-related troubles rather than greasing the skids
of the discipline ladder to create a plunge to removal . As to
that assertion , the Arbitrator certainly cannot agree .
The Arbitrator has often noted that any presumption that
supervisors generally are more trustworthy than grievants when
they testify at arbitration hearings or that they lack a motive
or self-interest to shape facts to their benefit is one that is
questionable at best and often simply wrong . I have also noted
at various times that reliance on demeanor evidence to
- 15 -
resolve instances of credibility is slippery ground
at best. I agree with Arbitrator Samuel H . Jaffee that drawing
conclusions from opinions based on the demeanor of various
witnesses is notoriously unreliable and a treacherous basis for
solving fact controversies. See Golden Pride, Inc ., 68 LA 1232,
1235 (1977) .
The Arbitrator, however, cannot close his eyes to the
obvious, especially when a grievant subjects himself to the
scrutiny of being a witness in-hearing . This particular Grievant
testified fully and completely at the hearing in this arbitration
proceeding . Grievant at the time slurred his speech, appeared
to be flushed, and often disorientated . Moreover, he relied on
the claim of personal antipathy against him to justify the
prior numerous instances of discipline and the initial referral
to the PAR Program . Yet, he presented neither a basis for the
claim of improper motives on Management's part, or any explana-
tion as to why he did not follow through and/or participate in
PAR .
Under these facts, I certainly have not given any
substantial weight to the denials of wrongdoing of the Grievant .
I do not find him "innocent of wrongdoing ." On the charge of
improperly imbibing on duty and/or of being intoxicated on the
job, I hold merely that Management at hearing completely failed
to prove its case . That is, after all, the burden assumed by
it in discipline and discharge cases under the contract .
- 16 -
As to the second charge, that of failure of Grievant to
.properly discharge his duties on March 8, the ultimate weakness
in the case before the Arbitrator is that there is no concrete
evidence that a mail was misdelivered or curtailed on the date
in question . Management has not been able to find any mail, or
to show that any mail was not delivered which was in fact
scheduled for Route 912. All Management did on March 9 was to
go to approximately every fifth house on the route, and attempt
to ascertain if the residents had received mail .
The fact that some residents had not received mail, and
that one irate customer desired to have her check early, cannot
constitute sufficient evidence to terminate a 17-year veteran;employee
in my view . This is so despite the truly disastrous work record
of this Grievant . Ultimately, to justify discharge, more than several
group complaints must be proved . A dereliction of duty or "bad act"
has to be shown to allow disciplinary action for this or any employer .
Corroboration of the claims of omission must be had .
The obvious sticky point as to this charge, once again, and
what creates a close contest in credibility, is the pure hearsay
nature of the evidence adduced by the Employer . No evidence of
curtailed mail was introduced . Despite a postal inspector investi-
gation, no proof of thrown-away mail was offered . The Service
merely claims that where there is smoke, there is fire ; that an
experienced letter carrier can fool supervisors and the postal
inspectors called in ; nevertheless, the Arbitrator should sustain
- 17 -
Management because Grievant has shown a . propensity to engage in
similar , numerous misbehaviors in the past . Yet the Service
acknowledges that Management has been unable to find concrete
evidence of missing mail and is forced to argue that "a seasoned
carrier who failed to deliver a portion of his route would have
a number of methods to prevent detection of his failure to
perform his assigned duties ." (Employer ' s Brief , p . 2) . Manage-
ment is thus ultimately forced to rely solely on the fact, as
credibly testified to by Employer Witness Brown, that a number of
customers who were awaiting mail on the-day in question did not
see the carrier on that particular block on the day in question
during the delivery period and received no mail , or that some customers
claimed to have seen him drunk on the route and not delivering mail .
As noted above , one could and should desire more probative
and convincing evidence from Management , upon whom the burden
of proof rests . The Arbitrator recognizes that arbitration is
not a court of law and that the technical rules of evidence are
intentionally made inapplicable here . Hearsay is admissible,
and must be accorded the weight deemed appropriate by the Arbitrator .
In this instance , I believe the weight of the customer
complaints , in the form introduced in this case , is once again
insufficient . Grievant and the Union claim that numerous postal
customers are routinely angry with letter carriers because the
customers are scheduled for deliveries on the route later than
they like . Grievant also claimed that one woman was specifically
- 18 -
irritated around the time of the incident before me because a
check she expected was not received in the mail . These claims
in no way counteract or explain why the number of customers
involved here would complain simultaneously on a particular day .
Grievant's attempted explanations might serve to some extent to
explain why a series of complaints over time might occur .
Nowhere does Grievant convincingly present a plausible reason
for the number of complaints involved here to have come in on
March 8 and 9 . But that is not his burden .
Grievant's prior work record does reveal a propensity
to act in a manner. similar to that for which he is charged .
Although, in a criminal case , the record compiled by Grievant
might be inadmissible, in arbitration, prior work records are
often used by both labor and management both to prove the merits
of the case and with reference to the propriety of a particular
penalty imposed . Unions commonly claim that a particular
grievant with an outstanding work record would be unlikely to
suddenly seriously breach a work rule . Management, on the
other hand, often asserts that employees who have a repeated
pattern of similar misconduct have created by their, own conduct
the inference that they have merely repeated their indiscretions
once again . Under these particular facts and circumstances,
Grievant's prior work record seems to support the hearsay claims
of the customers credibly reported by Manager Brown .
19 -
Is such "proof" sufficient ? Lawyers often say, "Hard cases
make bad law ." Grievant is far from a perfect employee . To hold,
however , that the evidence of prior bad acts and customer complaints,
without any objective , corroborative proof , is sufficient to sustain
a finding of a rule violation and a removal would , in my view,
violate the basic right of employees to have a hearing and be proved
to have acted in breach of a rule . Some witness with personal .
knowledge--the unnamed supervisor, for example--could certainly
have been called by the Service to testify here, I believe . Without
that irreducible minimum, I find this contract ' s just cause standard
violated , as well - as a violation of the accepted norms of industrial
due process . I so find .
Based on the foregoing , including my assessment of
Grievant ' s demeanor and despite the extent and consistent nature
of the complaints submitted , I find Management has not sustained
its burden of proof that Grievant . engaged in conduct unacceptable
to the Postal Service by failing to discharge his duties on
March 8 . Specifically , the evidence does not show that Grievant
did not deliver mail to large segments of his route . Based on
observations of customers who were moved to telephone the Employer
both by Grievant ' s appearance and conduct , there was certainly
reason to investigate . Without some corroboration , this was
insufficient proof of breach of duty permitting discipline .
Since no breach of duty was proved whatsoever , I must order
Grievant restored to his former position , with full backpay
and all benefits , including seniority - Therefore , the grievance
must be sustained .
V . AWARD
For the reasons stated above and incorporated herein as if
fully rewritten , the grievance is sustained in its entirety .
Grievant is ordered restored to his former position , or substan-
tially equivalent employment, with all benefits and rights
restored, including full back pay .
ELLIOTT H . GOLDSTEINArbitrator
Chicago, IllinoisMarch11, 1985
ELLIOTT H . GOLDSTEINArbitrator29 South LaSalle StreetSuite 800Chicago, IL 60603(312) 444-9699