Labor and union studies overview

Labor & Union Studies

Discharge of Postal Letter Carrier for Off-Duty Conduct

The principle of nexus in reference to instances of off-duty misconduct is somewhat more complex than in directly work-related issues. The causal connection of off-duty conduct to the effectiveness and/or image of the employee and is employer (in this case, the United States Postal Service) is obviously more difficult to establish than violations and/or errors that occur in the performance of job duties, but such a nexus certainly can and often does exist. Management addresses the nexus in this specific case explicitly and completely in their assessment that first, management needed to have "reasonable basis to believe Allen was guilty of the alleged crime," and second -- and most importantly in the discussion of nexus as it relates to this case -- that a "sufficient relationship" existed between the crimes for which Allen had been indicted and his role as a rural mail carrier. This relationship was established to management's satisfaction, though not to labor's and this is one of the substantive issues of this case.

One of the major disputes in this case is whether or not management had reasonable cause to believe that Allen had committed certain crimes. The fact that Allen was indicted by a grand jury provides this reasonable cause, according to management, but labor disagrees. Certainly, an indictment is not a conviction; Allen has not been found guilt of a crime or presented a criminal defense. Neither, however, is an indictment an arrest. An arrest can occur merely due to a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officer that a crime has been committed or is being committed. An indictment, on the other hand, requires the presentation of evidence to a grand jury of the accused's peers, and allows for a preliminary defense to be mounted. The standing indictments, then, came as the result of careful consideration of evidence.

Mr. Como's testimony as to who made the decision regarding Allen's dismissal is irrelevant given the language of Article 16, which does not specify who may take the action allowed in that Article. The same is true of both Ms. Balk's testimony regarding Allen's efforts at restitution and the fact that the district attorney has not yet brought the case to trial. In the first instance, criminal courts and charges exist to protect the public, not only the victims of specific instances of crime. It is therefore purposefully not in Ms. Balk's power to dismiss or mitigate the charges against Allen. The same is true of the personal whims of the district attorney, who at some point will need to either drop the charges or bring them to trial -- expediting the matter is the prerogative of Mr. Allen and his attorney. The support from the community and the effect on Allen's co-workers is significant insofar as its establishment of the nexus, but the language of the contract allows for Allen's dismissal as long as the indictments stand.

If anything, the fact that Allen works in the pubic sector places a more onerous burden on his off-duty conduct. As a representative of the United States government, regardless of the actual role he performs, his conduct reflects not only on himself and his institution (i.e. The Postal Service), but on the government as a whole. Again, this does not have any specific and direct bearing on the contractual issues at hand in this case, but again goes towards the establishment of nexus. The image and perception of the Postal Service and the federal government can be assumed to be both more important and more fragile in the public mind than that of private companies, and Mr. Allen's conduct is therefore more likely to have caused detrimental effects not only to the Postal Service, but to the basic trust in civil services in his area.

In refusing to bargain or negotiate with Mr. Bolton, attorney for Mr. Allen, the Postal Service was upholding its contract with the Union to consider the Union the sole bargaining agent for Mr. Allen and other rural mail carriers. The Union's claim that management discounted the information provided by Mr. Bolton because he was a non-bargaining agent is a gross misrepresentation of the occurrence; no real information was provided by Mr. Bolton that had bearing on this case, and management politely but firmly denied to further correspond with the attorney for matters it had contracted to negotiate through the union. Management had stated that Allen would be reinstated should the charges be dropped or Allen acquitted, and until that time the grievance and dismissal were solely labor -- and not criminal -- concerns.

There is no reason that the Union should not be allowed to provide character witnesses attesting to Allen's job performance and overall standing in the community, however these witnesses and their testimony have relatively little to no bearing on the case. Again, the issue that such testimony has direct bearing on is the establishment of nexus, in determining whether or not Mr. Allen's alleged off-duty conduct would have a detrimental effect on his ability to perform his job, or in his customers' appraisal of him in the performance of his duties. Ultimately, unless overwhelming community support and compelling testimony related to Mr. Allen's performance of his job as a mail carrier was presented by character witnesses, such witnesses would have no real legal bearing on the contractual issues at hand, but the Union should not be prevented from presenting such testimony.